Re: [w3c/editing] contenteditable-disabled (#176)

@Reinmar I generally agree that we should focus on the needs of actual editors. But we should always be open to the possibility that there are editors out there from whom we have not heard yet and who for some reason are using `designMode`. That's why I did some investigation into that on github, but the result there seems to be negative. So what is basically left are non-open source editors. If someone is able to find one of those we could also take them into consideration.

As for DOM API vs. flag list -- as with most such subjects, I don't have really strong opinions on one vs. the other. But there has been a great danger to such issues getting us distracted and then nothing happens. For now we have a resolution to have a space separated list of flags as an attribute. If Gecko would like to propose something else, I think we should have that as a topic at the TPAC meeting. Also with an API DOM, we will likely need to cover the same list of flags, so it's important that we don't stop completing the list while we are waiting for a discussion on an API DOM. Should we later go with an API DOM instead, we should be able to rapidly change the list of flags into a list of recognized keywords for a DOM API.

@Reinmar if you can think of good example uses of something beyond on/off for these features, then it's probably a good idea to write them down in a separate issue so that we can bring those up when we have the DOM API vs. flags list discussion at the F2F meeting.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/176#issuecomment-402301169