Ryosuke Niwa
Software Engineer
Google Inc.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
wrote:
>
> On 08/22/2012 11:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>> But, again, letting webpages force that behavior in Safari seems wrong to
>> me. I don't think we should allow violating the platform conventions for
>> undo so freely. You seem to feel strongly that webpages should be able to
>> align with the Gecko behavior, but wouldn't it be even worse to let them
>> forcibly violate the WebKit behavior?
>>
>
> It is not worse either way. Equally bad both ways. But, we're designing a
> new API here, so we should make the API as good as possible from the start.
> And I think that means allowing multiple undo stack must be in. The
> default handling could be somehow platform specific.
>
Maybe I didn't make this point clear but we're not going to implement
multiple undo managers in a single document (at least as it's currently
spec'ed) in WebKit regardless of how useful that feature is. *Our
implementation feedback is that we can't implement it*.
So if there is an API for separate undo stacks, it has to handle the case
>> where there's really a single undo stack. And that would potentially be
>> hard to program with.
>>
>> On the other hand, there are certainly use cases where a single global
>> undo stack is right (such as a page with a single rich text editor). And
>> it's easy to handle those cases without adding a lot of complexity. And
>> if we get that right, we could try to add on something for conditional
>> multiple undo stacks.
>>
>
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>wrote:
> On 08/22/2012 11:28 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com<mailto:
>> mjs@apple.com>> wrote:
>>
>> So if there is an API for separate undo stacks, it has to handle the
>> case where there's really a single undo stack. And that would potentially be
>> hard to program with.
>>
>> On the other hand, there are certainly use cases where a single
>> global undo stack is right (such as a page with a single rich text editor).
>> And
>> it's easy to handle those cases without adding a lot of complexity.
>> And if we get that right, we could try to add on something for conditional
>> multiple undo stacks.
>>
>>
>> Maybe the solution is as simple as to make undoscope content attribute an
>> optional feature.
>> Browsers/platforms that can have multiple undo managers
>> within a single document will support undoscope content attribute, and
>> those that can't won't support it. Authors will then feature-detect
>> undoscope
>> content attribute and support both cases.
>>
>> What do you guys think?
>>
>
> There should be no optional features in this kind of API.
>
I disagree.
- Ryosuke