Re: [editing] Definition of "Invisible elements" is vague (#68)

> After some thoughts, my proposal would be to define as display: none only. Other invisible elements are to be handled by JS, possibly with help from some other rules, such as ones to be defined in #70.

How about comment nodes and possibly other nodes that do not generate boxes even before applying CSS?


> The canonicalization, in Blink/WebKit terminology, is a concept to try to move carets to a sane place. For instance, when user/JS pressed "right", and there's a <div style="display:none"></div> next to the caret, it makes sense to skip it.

All of this makes sense. Question then: Does this mean, that if we allow for movement of the caret by default with all these "canonicalization" rules turned off, and one adds no extra JS library for caret movement, the caret is bound to disappear into places where it cannot be displayed every now and then, and it will then not reappear either by hitting the same key more times? (for example, hitting the down key 50 times until the caret is somewhere that it previously would have been moved away from based on "canonilicazation" rules)

If this is the case, then I wonder if it really is a good idea to keep caret movement by the browser enabled by default. It would seem like somewhat of a useless feature, if one needs to reimplement it in JS anyway.


---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/68#issuecomment-132214078