RE: Default Caret and Selection Positioning Spec?

Can we please use GitHub issues? If an issue contains multiple topics, we should split it into multiple issues. That will keep the conversation cleaner. Email tends to lose context.

From: [] On Behalf Of Johannes Wilm
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 3:53 AM
To: Frederico Knabben
Cc: Ben Peters; Ryosuke Niwa; public-editing-tf
Subject: Re: Default Caret and Selection Positioning Spec?

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Frederico Knabben <<>> wrote:

a|<span cE=false><span cE=true>b</span>c</span>d
a<span cE=false><span cE=true>b|</span>c</span>d (nothing to skip)
This one seems more questionably to me.  What would the use case be to not have the caret be able to go in front of the "b"? It seems like users would need "hack" this by adding a zero-width space to the outer span to get around this limitation. That doesn't seem right.
Visually speaking, the user sees the above as "a|bcd". Considering that both "a" and "b" are editable, with nothing non-editable in-between them, it is a natural user expectation that ARROW-RIGHT will lead to "ab|cd".

I understand that there may be situations where you want to style non editable blocks in a more evident way to the user, with borders, padding, etc... so it sounds reasonable for me that if the outer <span cE=false> has the "display" style set to anything that is not "inline", like "inline-block", the movement would count as a in-between blocks move, so the caret will be before "b". This would be a good way to bring developers control over this behavior.

I think that sounds like a good compromise and a lot better than having to add zero space characters as would otherwise be the only way around this:

a<span class="outer" cE=false>&#8203;<span cE=true>b</span>c</span>d

I can't think of any circumstances in which one may need to use the inline css style yet still want this behavior.

Btw, I feel that the computed style of "display" is critical on the algorithms, because some block elements may be styled as inline and vice-versa.

We discussed some related cases in the  above URL.
@Ben, It is pretty hard to follow the discussion there, because there are several different topics under discussion on separate comments. Just like this thread. I really think that a shared document would do a better job.

Agreed. I sometimes feel that certain points have been forgotten, but I don't want to constantly repost here as that would just spam the list.

Johannes Wilm
Fidus Writer<>

Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2014 17:23:36 UTC