Chair review of the issue-205 text-editing-canvas change proposals

Change Proposals:
  CaretSelection Revisited:

CaretSelectionRevised has use cases, rationale, and sufficient level of 
detail to proceed to a survey.  The use cases however are located on a 
wiki that contain a number of counter-proposals.  Isolating the use 
cases from the other proposals needs to be addressed prior to moving to 
a survey.

No_edit does not address the use cases provided.  It asserts that the 
rationale is "well reasoned" without providing justification for this 
assertion.  It also makes other assertions such as "superior" and "more 
accessible" without providing any supporting evidence or addressing the 
original proposal.

The details section is incomplete in that it lists examples of things 
that could be added instead of providing a set of edit instructions, 
specific enough that they can be applied without ambiguity.

As to the other proposals on the wiki that haven't been presented, it 
would be OK to revise the No_edit proposal to include these.  Otherwise, 
they won't be considered in the HTML5 time frame.  This may be what is 
intended by this proposal, as this proposal makes the suggestion that 
follow-on work occur in a Community Group.

Net: the minimum necessary changes required to proceed to a survey are 
to isolate the use cases and to enumerate the references to other 
technologies.  It would be advisable for the No_edit proposal to address 
the use cases provided.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2012 12:21:09 UTC