Re: proposal for ISSUE-191: replace ins and del elements by an attibute-based solution

On 02/28/2012 01:55 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> This proposal has a number of problems that need to be addressed before
> the chairs will accept it.
> For starters, it doesn't contain the required sections:
> Additionally, it is missing essential details (example: "whatever is the
> way to do it"). Finally it is missing rationale for some of the changes
> (example: @reviewer attribute or the 'reviewed' or 'to-be-reviewed'
> states of the @change attribute).

We are now consider the proposal to be withdrawn, and are marking issue 
191 as postponed.

- Sam Ruby

> On 01/20/2012 10:02 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
>> Here is the proposal:
>> ------------
>> It is well known among wysiwyg authoring tool implementors since the
>> end of 80's (I insist: 80's) that an element-based solution for
>> insertion and deletion is not enough. In the case of a content model
>> not allowing these elements (think ol/ul in html for instance), using
>> elements here require the use of the old mechanism of sgml inclusions.
>> One might object that not having <ul><del><li>foo</li></del></ul>
>> is not a problem but in fact it is. It is important to be able to
>> declare the whole list item has been deleted - and became non-editable -
>> instead of deleting its content and preserving the possibility to place
>> a caret before or after the <del> but still inside the <li>.
>> Implementors worked around the problem using proprietary attributes (for
>> instance versions of MS Word based on XML) or paired processing
>> instructions (various SGML/XML-based editors) to mimic the behaviour of
>> a text-only editor.
>> HTML4 introduced the <ins> and <del> elements and these elements survive
>> in html5. The original diagnosis still stand: the <ins> and <del>
>> elements cannot cover all the cases needed by the industry and represent
>> a viable solution only in source editing mode.
>> -----------
>> It is proposed to "deprecate" the ins and del elements, whatever is the
>> way to do it and switch to an attribute-based solution known to be able
>> to handle all cases, for both source editing and wysiwyg editing.
>> - @change attribute
>> value: [ 'inserted' | 'deleted' ] [ 'reviewed' || 'to-be-reviewed' ]?
>> the inserted value means the element and its contents were added to
>> the original document
>> the deleted value means the element and its contents were deleted
>> from the original document
>> the optional and exclusive reviewed and to-be-reviewed values mean
>> the insertion and deletion have to be reviewed; the reviewer is
>> described in human readable form by the contents of the @reviewer
>> attribute
>> - @reviewer attribute
>> value: Text
>> an arbitrary value meaningful only when the change attribute
>> contains the reviewed or to-be-reviewed value and meant to be
>> displayed for human consumption ; can be for instance a name, a
>> mail, a twitter id, etc.
>> - the @cite as currently defined in the html5 spec on ins and del
>> elements
>> - the @datetime as currently defined in the html5 spec on ins and del
>> elements
>> With such a proposal the bogus case described in the diagnosis above
>> <ul><del><li>foo</li></del></ul>
>> becomes the valid <ul><li change="deleted">foo</li></ul>.
>> Deleting a simple chunk of text 'foo' inside for instance
>> <p>foo bar</p>
>> requires the insertion of for instance a <span>. But it already required
>> the insertion of a <del> element, so there is no extra cost here.
>> The conceptual model of insertions and deletions in html is not
>> changed and the new model allows source editing AND
>> solves the issues raised by ins and del in wiswyg environments.
>> The 'reviewed' and 'to-be-reviewed' values of @change and the associate
>> @reviewer attribute allow to establish a minimal workflow of changes in
>> a collaborative environment.
>> This solution or a very similar one is already implemented by multiple
>> vendors of the editing industry, including Microsoft, in editors based
>> on markup. It is simple to implement. It's trivial to implement for
>> browser vendors since it's only a question of UA stylesheet and no
>> specific browser-based behaviour is expected.
>> The proposal solves a 15 years old problem. Vendors stopped complaining
>> about it in the past mostly because the XHTML2 WG refused at that time
>> to deal with HTML4 errata. The absence of visible feedback in 2012 does
>> not mean the problem does not still stand. I think the proposed solution
>> is so simple it's worth seriously considering it.
>> </Daniel>

Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 11:21:33 UTC