On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Frederico Knabben > <f.knabben@cksource.com> wrote: > > Well, I should have been stopped exactly here. Both contenteditable=true > and > > execCommand ARE parts of a W3C recommendation: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/editing.html#editing-0 > > > > Which, in the case of cE=true, it specs it (minimally) but in case of > > execCommand, it points back to the Editing TF. > > > > So, one option maybe be: > > > > * Warning that for cE=true no further work will be done on it (no > > deprecation, just freezing). > > * Deprecate execCommand (and similars) without spec’ing them, as they > are > > not spec’ed in a recommendation but are mentioned. > > It does not spec the behavior of contenteditable=true, it only specs > the existence of the attribute. Behavior is covered by the editing > spec, same as execCommand(). > So the existence of those features is at recommendation stage, but the speccing of said features is at editor's draft stage? > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org> > wrote: > > My experience with the bugs I have filed with browsers is that they don't > > care about it. > > My experience as someone who somewhat works on Mozilla's editor > component is that 95% of the time, we don't care about it. But > occasionally we do try to fix a bug for some weird reason. :) > Actually, there's at least one bug that someone is right now working > on fixing. So it has been known to happen! And in those odd cases a > spec could be useful (if anyone understood it but me). > I see. Well just another reason to continue as we are planning then. -- Johannes Wilm Fidus Writer http://www.fiduswriter.org
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2015 12:47:26 UTC