W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [editing] Using public-webapps for editing discussion

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:31:40 -0700
Message-ID: <4E717FAC.6030501@jumis.com>
To: public-webapps@w3.org
On 9/14/11 4:30 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Since some related functionality was included (at one point) in the 
> HTML5 spec, it seems like we should ask the HTML WG for feedback on 
> Aryeh's email.
>
> Aryeh told me there are some related bugs:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423
>   http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13425
>
> Maciej, Sam, Ruby - do have a sense if the HTML WG has a (strong) 
> opinion on Aryeh's question below?
>
> -Art Barstow
>
> On 9/13/11 4:27 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> For the last several months, I was working on a new specification,
>> which I hosted on aryeh.name.  Now we've created a new Community Group
>> at the W3C to host it:
>>
>> http://aryeh.name/spec/editing/editing.html
>> http://www.w3.org/community/editing/
>>
>> Things are still being worked out, but one issue is what mailing list
>> to use for discussion.  I don't want to create new tiny mailing lists
>> -- I think we should reuse some existing established list where the
>> stakeholders are already present.  Previously I was using the whatwg
>> list, but as a token of good faith toward the W3C, I'd prefer to
>> switch to public-webapps, even though my spec is not a WebApps WG
>> deliverable.  (If it ever does move to a REC track spec, though, which
>> the Community Group process makes easy, it will undoubtedly be in the
>> WebApps WG.)
>>
>> Does anyone object to using this list to discuss the editing spec?

I'm happy to see this spec continued on the webapps WG.

I don't see Shelley Powers' objection being addressed. She has expressed 
concerns that the HTML Editing APIs have been taken out of W3C WGs and 
associated processes.

Apple, Google and Microsoft representatives have vetoed rich text 
editing as a supported use case for public-canvas-api, the Google/WHATWG 
editing specification is now the -only- supported solution for 
developers to author editing environments.

Because this is the only approved method of editing HTML content, and 
I've seen -no- controversy around the specification itself, I'd like 
Shelley Powers' position reconsidered by the editors.

Were Apple, Google and Microsoft to loosen their position on rich text 
editing, such that authors can proceed with rich text editing that does 
not rely on this specification, I'd be less concerned. I don't think 
that'll happen for the next ~18 months.

Aryeh, consider releasing more authority to the W3C process. The 
specification is fairly mature, I'm not seeing push-back on this spec, 
and I know that there are several voices which would better served 
through formal process. Also, try to get this onto the hg repositories, 
in the same style that DOM4 has been entered. It works well for 
maintaining your CC0/WHATWG labels while also providing the W3C with a 
publishable draft under their own restrictions.


-Charles
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 04:32:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT