Re: existing contenteditable spec

PS: I don't quite understand why the repo is called "editing-explainer". It
seems to mena that "editing-task-force" or "editing-apis" would be more
useful names.

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org>
wrote:

> 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
>



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