- From: Johannes Wilm <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:03:26 -0700
- To: w3c/editing <editing@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3c/editing/issues/86/134649694@github.com>
I see what you are saying. In terminology we will try to stay as close to W3C terminology as possible. That way, I think, we can get as fast as possible through the standardization system and obtain the greatest amount of attraction by browser makers. I do not yet know what those terms are in the case of these subsets of oneanother (I will look at other specs), but using the term "module" at least gives me the idea that you can have module "A" and module "B" independently, and not that they are in a hierarchical relation to oneanother. If in a later version of the spec, we change our mind and decide that the different "modes" do not have to be in a hierarchical relation to oneanother, I don't think that will be any problem, especially as long as we are talking of still unspecified "modes" that have not yet been shipped in browsers. Btw, if it turns out that the standard term for such hierarchical modes is "modules", then this discussion is redundant. :) --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/86#issuecomment-134649694
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2015 16:03:54 UTC