- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 18:21:47 +0200
- To: Julie Parent <jparent@google.com>
- CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-editing-tf@w3.org
On 17/06/2014 02:12 , Julie Parent wrote: > If Intention events are (temporarily) moved out of scope, I think this > leads us back to the question of what would contentEditable='minimal' do > exactly? Enable collapsed selections and default handling of cursor > movement ... anything else? If this is all it would do, then perhaps > what we really want is an explicit API to enable cursors? The way I see it, that is indeed *all* it would do (and serve as a sanity flag so that browsers know how to handle this cleanly). It *is* an explicit API to enable cursors. It has the advantage of reusing an existing name so that we don't have to worry about what happens when you specify both; and it's declarative because that's what you want for such a case (notably so that CSS can style what's editable cleanly). We could rename it contentEditable=cursor if that's cleaner — the idea is the same (and I certainly won't argue bikeshedding :). -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 16:21:56 UTC