RE: existing contenteditable spec

Ok, that sounds good to me. The changes should be minimal.

I personally don't have any license preference. But it would be preferable
if it could all be under the same license so the terms are clear. Also, it
should be whatever is the standard for the w3c. I hope there is someone
with more legal knowledge than me on this list who is looking into this.
On May 22, 2015 1:23 PM, "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  > 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> 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
>