- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:42:43 +0900
- To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@google.com>
- Cc: "public-editing-tf@w3.org" <public-editing-tf@w3.org>
> On 19 Oct 2015, at 13:30, Ojan Vafai <ojan@google.com> wrote: > > IMO, there are three things I'd like to get agreement on in Sapporo and then I'll be happy encouraging our Chrome editing folks to consider implementing what we've got. > > 1. The composition + focus change thread I just sent an email about. Responded (I agree). > 2. Spec the delete behavior. I think this is a small subset of execCommand and is the only way to make contentEditable=typing not treat IMEs in some weird, special way. Sounds desirable if we can actually do it, but I think it is hard. This is a subset of execCommand, but I am not sure it is that small/simple: a - This can be arbitrarily complicated when applied to arbitrarily complicated markup. With only a handful of elements, you can trivially expose differences between today's browsers. E.g.: http://jsbin.com/fukaboyevi/1/edit?html,output b - This means we need to deal with FF (and maybe other browsers in the future) having multi-range selections. c - This means we need to deal with how deletion interacts with having ce=false children of ce=typing or ce=true d - This means we need to deal with how deletion interacts with having user-select:none or user-select:all or user-select:contain e - this means dealing with the various aspects of a, b, c, and d occuring simultaneously. Don't get me wrong, I want a spec for all that, and I am happy to contribute to the discussion. But I am worried that this is more than this group can chew at this time. I would love to be proven wrong though. Do you have any reason to suspect this is simpler than what I fear? Can we restrict ourselves to a saner subset (plaintext deletion?) and still manage to not treat IMEs in a weird way? > 3. As complete a list as we can get of the editing types. What do you mean by editing types? > FWIW, we can implement each of these 3 independently, so they don't block each other. Makes sense. Also, we probably need to work on number 4: Spec how IME reopening previously committed text works. Ryosuke said he had worked on this and related topics extensively with Ben, but I don't think I've seen what they came up with. - Florian
Received on Monday, 19 October 2015 05:43:14 UTC