RE: existing contenteditable spec

> Sure, could you help us get it on the agenda for the next meetings of both WGs?
I suggest that we get the approval via a Call for Consensus (CfC) that is sent to both groups.

We might want to do this after some of the other questions in your email about licensing are figured out.

/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 1:17 PM
To: Paul Cotton
Cc: Aryeh Gregor; Ryosuke Niwa; public-editing-tf@w3.org; Xiaoqian Wu; Arthur Barstow
Subject: 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<mailto: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<tel:%28425%29%20705-9596> Fax: (425) 936-7329<tel:%28425%29%20936-7329>

From: johanneswilm@gmail.com<mailto:johanneswilm@gmail.com> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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> <mailto:ayg@aryeh.name>> wrote:

   On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Arthur Barstow
   <art.barstow@gmail.com<mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com> <mailto: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<http://www.fiduswriter.org/>



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