- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 15:51:57 +0200
- To: Julie Parent <jparent@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 30/05/2014 00:50 , Julie Parent wrote: > Without default text input, the current proposal for > contentEditable="minimal" is essentially just enabling cursors (drawing > them, dispatching events, performing default actions). Rather than > calling the mode "minimal", which is ill-defined, why not explicitly > call it what it is: "cursor-only"? Sure, but (assuming we go this route) I'm not too worried about the name at the moment. We can define what it does, then pick a good name for it. That's the easiest bit to change. > Or, have contentEditable take a list > of features to turn enable: contentEditable="enable-cursors > enable-CommandEvents". I'd rather we agreed on the pieces we're going to have before we see if this can make sense. > Or, rather than tying this concept to contentEditable, with all the > assumptions and complications that brings up, why not expose this > building block as a completely separate attribute? We can, but this isn't necessarily simpler. Saying we add an "editable" attribute, we then have to define what happens when you have <div contentEditable editable> (and various other niceties). It's not the end of the world, but it's a bit of extra complexity. Reusing the attribute name and giving it a value that triggers new behaviour doesn't bring in the complications, but it does give us a relatively clean syntax entry point. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 13:52:07 UTC