Re: existing contenteditable spec

Hey,
I have cleaned up, updated, merged the two git repositories into one that
now contains the history of both [1].

We have some issues on this still:

   - The License file says it's all licensed under MIT, which was the
   license used by the editing-explainer repository. The license of the
   editing-apis repository was CC). The specs themselves tell the user they
   are licensed as CC-BY. Can/Should these licenses be unified? Relicensing
   CC) to MIT should be unproblematic, right? But do we need two different
   licenses for the textual contents and the files?
   - I have copied the old editing spec twice: Once as a document
   documenting historic behavior, and once as a draft specification of
   execCommand with the parts about selection removed. Both documents likely
   need more cleanup over time.
   - I have updated the charter document to reflect what the group is doing
   now. This part may need to go through an approval process in the working
   group, right?


[1] https://github.com/w3c/editing-explainer


On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Xiaoqian Wu <xiaoqian@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The mercurial repo of the Editing APIs was moved to a temporary Git
> repo[1]. Please go ahead and clean up(merge) the relevant files.
>
> Thank you.
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/editing-apis
>
> --
> xiaoqian
>
>
> On 2015-5-21, at 7:10pm, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/19/15 9:58 AM, Johannes Wilm wrote:
>
> Ok, could I be added as an editor (there can be others) to this spec
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/raw-file/tip/editing.html ? And can we
> transfer it to this task force/working group?
>
>
> Based on Aryeh's feedback, I think we should consider his spec in scope
> for the TF, the relevant file(s) be copied to the TF's Github repo [1] and
> further work be conducted there. If you need help with moving any files to
> GH, Xiaoqian agreed to help so please let her know.
>
> (After there is a relatively clear path forward for the spec within the
> TF, the hg version should be redirected to the new version and/or add some
> type of note should be added that says something like "work on this version
> has stopped -> see the GH version which is active".)
>
> -Thanks, AB
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/editing-explainer
>
> I don't think any of us want to promise to have an entirely finished and
> ready to go set of editing specs within a few weeks, but we will be able to
> synchronize the editing efforts better if we have all the relevant
> documents.
>
> We should then also have a meeting, preferably F2F in Europe in the near
> future to decide upon some of the controversial bits and hopefully come up
> with documents that are reasonably close to start going through the first
> steps of the W3C approval process.
>
> @Ryosuke: To make sure -- You have split off the selection specific bits,
> so that we can remove those from the draft spec, correct?
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name <
> mailto:ayg@aryeh.name <ayg@aryeh.name>>> wrote:
>
>    On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Arthur Barstow
>    <art.barstow@gmail.com <mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com
> <art.barstow@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>    > On 5/18/15 5:15 PM, Johannes Wilm wrote:
>    >>
>    >> Hey,
>    >> I was recently asked whether we are also editing this spec:
>    https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/raw-file/tip/editing.html
>    >>
>    >> This seems to be something creating under the WhatWG in around
>    2012 or so. It does contain some basic ideas on how execCommand
>    some and some other essential contenteditable elements behave.
>    >>
>    >> I would suggest that we will take over this specification
>    unless someone else is editing it and add anything related to
>    execCommand and other contenteditable parts mentioned there.
>    >>
>    >> Currently our specs build on the concept that execCommand is
>    being spec'ed somewhere else, so if such a specification already
>    (partially) exists in a W3C spec, then we should build on that
>    spec or replace it, or drop execCommand entirely.
>    >>
>    >> Anyone here who would like to edit this spec?
>
>    The spec has not been actively maintained for a long time, and I have
>    no plans to resume maintaining it, so anyone who wants to take over
>    should please do so.  I think Ryosuke Niwa has already split off the
>    Selection-specific bits, so double-check that before editing them.  If
>    anyone wants to take over, I very strongly encourage them to keep the
>    included test suite synchronized with the spec -- I'd be happy to
>    explain how.  (Basically there's a reference JavaScript implementation
>    that you need to update to match spec changes.)  I found the test
>    suite essential in making sure that the spec was correct, since the
>    subject matter is so complicated.  The suite has also proved
>    invaluable for regression-testing in Mozilla code.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Johannes Wilm
> Fidus Writer
> http://www.fiduswriter.org <http://www.fiduswriter.org/>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Johannes Wilm
Fidus Writer
http://www.fiduswriter.org