Re: User Intentions Explainer (was: List of Intentions)

These both look quite good!

On Example 3 on the commands explainer, I was wondering if it is the idea
that custom actions only can be triggered by specific key presses, whereas
for standard events are triggered by "intentions". So say that we listen
for CTRL+C to trigger our custom intention "checkGrammar" -- but the user's
browser happens to use a locale where CTRL+C is the common standard for
bold? Would it not be possible to create a new intention and bind it to
CTRL+C unless that key combination is occupied already, in which case it's
CTRL+L, etc.? Could there be a way to get all the key bindings defined for
a given contenteditable=minimal area and their intentions? (to display in a
help box, for example)

Also, would there be a way to bind intentions not just to key clicks but
also to new items in the right click menu? An editor may want to use the
internal spell checker, but add a custom thesauruses and a grammar checker
to the menu. But maybe this is defined somewhere else?


On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Ben Peters <Ben.Peters@microsoft.com>
wrote:

>  There is now an Editing Explainer [1] and a User Intentions Explainer
> [2], which should help scope the problems and help us drive forward on both
> areas. I haven't done much to fine tune them yet, but please let me know if
> you have feedback on this split from the initial Commands Explainer
> document. Thanks!
>
>
>
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/editing-explainer/
>
> [2] http://w3c.github.io/editing-explainer/commands-explainer.html
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Ben Peters <Ben.Peters@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with this. We should have a single 'shape' for these events and
> shared terminology.
> >
> > I think trying to solve all of the problems in one complete spec would
> be too complex,  but if we use an Intentions Explainer to divide the
> problem into manageable pieces, we can continue on our trajectory of
> creating these events for Selection, Clipboard, Drag and Drop, Input (aka
> Editing), and perhaps other user interactions. Are there objections to this
> approach? If not, I will begin to adapt the Commands Explainer into a more
> generic Intentions Explainer.
> >
>



-- 
Johannes Wilm
Fidus Writer
http://www.fiduswriter.org