Re: [w3c/editing] Updated the intro material to better reflect the current status. (#302)

On Sat, 2021-07-24 at 04:05 -0700, Johannes Wilm wrote:
> @njdjacobs Well, you wrote to me in an email on April 10 that you did
> not want to go further with your proposal. I responded on April 14
> that you didn't need to give up and what the initial steps of the
> process would look like if you wanted to continue. After that you
> didn't respond.
> The paragraph you want to change has been heavily discussed in the
> past. Changing it is therefore not uncontroversial and would at least
> require for the change to be discussed within the working group.
> There is a way for you to go forward with your proposal, but I cannot
> just merge this without checking whether there is consensus around
> your proposal.
> I would therefore like to encourage you to apply for Invited Expert
> status and present your proposal at a call, alternatively, you could
> discuss it with someone else who is familiar with your usecase who
> will go through these steps instead of you.
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
My suggested changes make no recommendations of any kind. They merely
replace statements (about the current implementations) which were
correct at the time they were written, but which are now false because
the implementations have long ago changed. If replacing false
statements by true statements is "not uncontroversial", then the
working group has problems which are beyond the capability of an
outsider like myself to fix.

You could leave the pull request open. Maybe the situation will change.
One alternative, in my opinion, would be to scrap the whole document,
perhaps replacing it with a one-sentence placeholder simply stating
that browsers have implemented execCommand but that it is deprecated
and will not be the subject of a standards-track document. That would
surely be less misleading than an outdated document.



-- 
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/pull/302#issuecomment-886058675