Re: Request to re-open issue 131 -USE CASES, USE CASES, USE CASES from Charles Pritchard on 2011-12-19 (public-html@w3.org from December 2011)

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:07:44 -0800
To: Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, david bolter <david.bolter@gmail.com>, "dbolter@mozilla.com" <dbolter@mozilla.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Message-ID: <4EEF9990.5030207@jumis.com>

On 12/19/11 3:27 AM, Frank Olivier wrote:
> So the last use case seems reasonable to me to solve. But the first two appear to be only for text editing and so falls into the category that*I*  am not interested in solving at this time. At least not until someone has shown that a proper editor can be built for them.

Is this statement falsifiable? I mean that: is there any means of 
actually proving or disproving the "proper"-ness of an editor?

Received on Monday, 19 December 2011 20:34:53 UTC