Re: [editing] "CE Events Container" should be replaced by "editing host" (#66)

> We need to distinguish between those editing hosts which can serve as editing hosts for execCommand and those that cannot serve as editing hosts for execCommand. The one in cE=true can serve as such an editing host, whereas those in cE=events cannot serve as such an editing host. At least we cannot guarantee that they do.

Right.

> One solution A) would be to not use the term "editing host" for cE=events containers. Another solution B) would be to call them two different types of editing hosts. I am open to either one of those solutions or for an entirely different proposal

I'd prefer B to avoid introducing two made-up terms that refer to very similar things.

> True. Given that the ultimate goal is to eliminate cE=true, I think the best is to keep the definition as simple as possible. Something like

I don't think we necessary want to eliminate `contenteditable=true`.  We're adding `contenteditable=events` now because spec'ing the former is really hard, and we can't easily reach an interoperability but we should aim to eventually reach interoperability between browsers.  In a way, you could think of `contenteditable=events` as "desugaring" `contenteditable=true`.  In that case, spec'ing `contenteditable=events` and adding more primitives should help browser engines to slowly converge to an interoperable implementing of `contenteditable=true` over time (like in 10-20 years).

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/66#issuecomment-130493164