Re: [ime-api] Followups from April f2f discussions

(-hbono@google.com, as he already left Google)

Hi Arthur, Mike,

We agree that removing <canvas> as an example and removed from the sample
source code
in the latest editor's draft spec.

We also agree that we should pour more efforts to make contenteditable
working
rather than encouraging DOM editors, but there are still many reasons that
custom
editors are needed and even a11y people recognize the need and they write
in section 6 of
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/wiki/ARIA_2_Requirements,

If an API function is worth for both editable and non-editable element, and
*could be*
used for building a custom editor, is it still blocking the issue?


Re Javascript IME, we dropped it from the spec already.
Chaals, could you give details if possible?

If a page already provides Javascript-based IME, what makes a difference
if the IME API provides implementing Javascript-based IME?
(it might be a repeated discussion, if so, any pointer to the discussion
would be great.)

I think it would make it easier to provide an IME, but still the page has to
load IME code every time it's loaded.  I don't think the original proposal
didn't include a way to provide a user-agent wide IME or system-wide IME
which allows it once installed to work for some range of pages (e.g.
yandex.ru/*).



On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote:

> Hi Mike, All,
>
> During WebApps' April 25 discussion about IME API ([Minutes]), Mike agreed
> to a couple of actions for the ime-api spec:
>
> * ACTION-690 - Ask the IME Editors to remove Canvas examples (e.g. images)
> [on Michael[tm] Smith - due 2013-05-02].
>
> * ACTION-691 - Smith to take back PFWG feedback to the IME API editor
> (Kochi) and propose we excise the mentions of DOM-based editor use-case in
> the use-case document, and the specific mentions of <canvas> in the actual
> spec [on Michael[tm] Smith - due 2013-05-02].
>
> It appears 690 has been addressed but I'm not entirely sure of 691.
> Regardless, please update Tracker accordingly <https://www.w3.org/2008/**
> webapps/track/users/39522<https://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/users/39522>
> >.
>
> Also, did the group decide to not support a webpage creating their own
> IME, at least not for v1?
>
> Lastly, I would appreciate it, if the Editors would please update the
> latest ED [ED] so it has a proper ToC, References, and such.
>
> -Thanks, AB
>
> [Mins] <http://www.w3.org/2013/04/25-**webapps-minutes.html#item12<http://www.w3.org/2013/04/25-webapps-minutes.html#item12>
> >
> [ED] <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-**api/raw-file/tip/Overview.html<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>
> **>
>
>
>


-- 
Takayoshi Kochi