RE: existing contenteditable spec

Sure, could you help us get it on the agenda for the next meetings of both
WGs?
On May 22, 2015 12:24 PM, "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  > This part may need to go through an approval process in the working
> group, right?
>
> The Editing Task Force is a joint effort of WebApps WG and the HTML WG so
> any approval should come from both WGs.
>
>
>
> /paulc
>
>
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
>
>
> *From:* johanneswilm@gmail.com [mailto:johanneswilm@gmail.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Johannes Wilm
> *Sent:* Friday, May 22, 2015 11:03 AM
> *To:* Xiaoqian Wu
> *Cc:* Arthur Barstow; Aryeh Gregor; Ryosuke Niwa; public-editing-tf@w3.org
> *Subject:* 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
>