On why we cannot (easily) delete/merge the editing specs

Hey list,

some members here have rightfully asked whether it isn't possible to
merge/remove some of the documents we have in the editing task folder. This
question has come up before and the files we currently have is a result of
those previous discussions. There are many views and many reasons for why
things are like they are. One of these reasons is the following combiantion
of circumstances:

-- The specs for the existing execCommand and contentEditable=True are not
likely to get finished any time soon or implemented according to spec.
Together they contain an extreme amount of HTML (1.1+ MB) and it has been
requested to please not mix these with the spec of the slimmed down new
versions of contentEditable (last time Ojan at TPAC). I don't think anyone
disagrees with that, right?

-- We cannot easily delete the contentEditable=True spec. This was up to
debate a few months ago, and there are strong feelings among some people
that contentEditable=True is not likely to be replaced by the new
alternatives ever. The deal we ended up with was to leave it in with a
large disclaimer (which was carefully negotiated at the time). There are
different opinions out there on whether or not this document eventually
will be resurrected or whether it is there merely for historic purposes.
I/we have agreed to update it upon request when someone needs it, but
otherwise not to spend too much time on it. Eventually we should move some
items from the execCommand spec (about paragraph merging and splitting,
etc.) into this document, but one will have to spend some time trying to
untangle what is what.

-- We cannot easily delete the execCommand spec. A small part of
execCommand is actually in active use of this. and just a few months ago
the Clipboard API people came by and asked for an update to the spec (which
I worked with them on getting in).

-- One of the proposals for execCommand a few months ago was to not have it
require an editing host at all. If I recall correctly, some also called for
just execCommand to be completely specced and for it to work with any
future version of contentEditable. The one command that one needs to use
execCommand for (copying) is actually not depending on an editing host
already. This means that execCommand is something used by developers who
don't have contentEdtiable in mind at all. That is why it is not
necessarily a good idea to have execCommand in the cotnentEditable=True
document.

-- We cannot point to Aryeh's contentEditable=True spec as an alternative
to our own. In fact, I took over for Aryeh more than half a year ago. The
spec has since changed both in form (making it work with respec) and in
content (due to changes requested by Clipboard API people). Me taking over
the editorship for Benjamin Peters and for Aryeh were two separate
processes. Also this misunderstanding came up again a few months later.
That second time it ended up with the agreement with Aryeh to have this
disclaimer added.

So, those are just a few of the reasons why it's hard to consolidate the
specs further at this time (you will find more if you do read through the
email list and github issues). But it shouldn't matter. These are all
Editor Drafts which have no standing in the W3C at all. We have also been
asked to keep every spec in its own repository, and the only reason why we
didn't do that yet was that we were in this circular process where the
question of which spec we would be developing was changing all the time. If
we are now more secure about what we want to do, we could move said spec to
its own repository.

I hope that made sense, and in order to prevent such a confusion in the
future, I suggest we add a note to the contentEditable=True spec saying
that eventually one will have to move some parts of the execCommand spec
there.


Other than that, I am glad you found some suggestions that seem to work for
all major browser implemtations!

-- 
Johannes Wilm
http://www.johanneswilm.org
tel: +1 (520) 399 8880