- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 17:42:50 +0200
- To: Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>, "public-editing-tf@w3.org" <public-editing-tf@w3.org>, Xiaoqian Wu <xiaoqian@w3.org>
> On 26 May 2015, at 17:06, Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: > >> As far as I can tell: >> https://w3c.github.io/editing-explainer/historic-editing-apis.html >> and >> https://w3c.github.io/editing-explainer/execCommand.html >> are the same, except for the presence of one extra section (Selections) in the first one, and they are copies of: >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/raw-file/tip/editing.html >> > The contents are currently very similar, yes, but I spent about 2 hours going through them to convert the file format (adding sections, etc.) and make them work with respec. Also, the start is different, making clear that one is a draft spec and the other one isn't. > > Whether we need both, one or none depends a bit how we go on. Some have suggested we properly spec execCommand. So I assume that that document will develop in one direction mainly with contributions by all those who want to see execCommand live. > > At the same time, I thought a lot of good information was collected in the old document about how browsers currently work or used to work, so I turned it into a "non-spec" historical info doc. This sort of research may continue as well, but somewhat independent of the execCommand spec. Also because one solution may be to create a "new execCommand" (execCommand with a different name) that behaves according to spec, while the old execCommand lives on to support legacy apps. Thanks for the explanation. The respec conversion is useful no matter what. Having 2 documents, 1 that normatively specs some things, and one that is a historical reference does sound like a reasonable thing, even though as you said, it seems not entirely clear yet which feature will go in which. However, to make things clear, I suggest that: * The historical reference should use WG-NOTE as the status * Both documents should explicitly reference https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/raw-file/tip/editing.html, preferably using a Previous Versions link (http://www.w3.org/respec/ref.html#previousuri) * Avoid duplication. Either we're (attempting to) normatively define something and it goes in the spec, or we're not, and it goes in the note (if it's worth preserving at all other than in VCS). Best regards, - Florian
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2015 15:43:20 UTC