Re: The web doesn't need another poorly implemented API

> 1. It is possible to write client code that implements all of this,
without using any contentEditable at all.

Yeah but these are by necessity very hacky and usually leave some edge case
(or several) poorly handled: IMEs, bidi text, OS-based special character
insertion, etc...

Not saying it can't be done, just that it's not a nice solution. CE=Typing
(or whatever we're calling it now) should allow for more well-rounded
editors with less brittle code.

Nobody is going to force you to use CE. Just ignore it if you don't like
it. Some of us don't want to leave editing on the web the way it is and are
attempting to do something about it. You've made your point but I don't see
this conversation being productive going forward.

- Olivier Forget

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:33 AM Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org>
wrote:

> Ok,
> you may not be trolling, but I don't think your comment is in any way
> constructive. We haev started with the first steps of getting toward
> speccing contentEditable. A process that may last up to several decades to
> be entirely done.
>
> Nothing guarantees that these implementations will be different, but there
> is some likelihood for that happening because the current specs are:
> A) much simpler than full cE=true and therefore much easier to get to work
> similarly across browsers
> B) actually in writing
> C) coming out of a process involving all the main JS editors and all the
> main browsers
>
> I propose we close this discussion topic as it will lead nowhere.
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Shahar Or <mightyiampresence@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Under minor trolling accusations (
>> https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/88), I reiterate here:
>>
>> There is no need for such an API. I feel that the contentEditable stuff
>> should just be deprecated.
>>
>> For two reasons:
>> 1. There is no way that browsers will implement such a complex API in a
>> reasonably consistent manner.
>> 1. It is possible to write client code that implements all of this,
>> without using any contentEditable at all.
>>
>> After dealing with current `designMode` and `contentEditable`
>> implementations, I can tell you, they are bad. But you know that. What
>> guarantees that implementations of this will be any different?
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Johannes Wilm
> Fidus Writer
> http://www.fiduswriter.org
>