Re: [w3c/editing] Removal of browser built-in Undo stack functionality from contenteditable (#150)

@dmonad I am not directly associated with any of the JavaScritp editors out there, but it is my udnerstanding from talking to them that this kind of line of argument "for websites that don't really need a fully fledged rich text editor, while providing basic functionality at little cost" is what they have heard a Billion times before and get quite frustrated about it. The thing is that yes, it's possible to create a tiny editor using execCommand. People are creating hundreds of those every year, and every time they get cool new titles. The problem is that they don't actually work in production and those who actually spend the needed X number of years then have to sit through meetings with potential clients arguing "why is your editor so large? There is this new kid that's just 10% as large and we don't really need a lot of editing anyway. I think you are just old and bulky,m like the Soviet Union." And then that client tries using that library, throws a few developers at it for some months when they notice they cannot use it directly, and after wasting X amount of resources they come back to one of the really working editors anyway. So I mean it's possible that pell is different than the thousands that have been there before it, but chances are that they are not because execCommand continues to be as broken as it always was.

I think the case of TypeIt is slightly different because they don't actually pretend to be a full editor.They are going for one real issue that people switching between different European languages really have, and with some luck, where users don't paste arbitrary content into their editor, users don't try to do a lot of formatting in TypeIt and the receiving editor is able to clean up the html that comes out of TypeIt, I can see how this can work for some users.

-- 
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/150#issuecomment-559212267