- From: Andrew Smith <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:59:14 -0700
- To: w3c/editing <editing@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2022 15:59:26 UTC
> I am still entirely perplex on the 100 limit, maybe we should open a new issue on this. When I see that more and more platforms consider the web as the centre of everything, reducing the amount of atoms it could write for that purpose to 0,6% sounds a bit ridiculous. I'm only asking to raise it.
From what I understand of this conversation the only limitation by the 100 limit is that one cannot write more than 100 different formats for a single copy operation but I have never seen any application even come close to that limit. Perhaps you're thinking that this means that only the first 100 _unique_ clipboard format names will work but I don't think that is what is proposed. Instead one will be writing the same 0-n names (e.g. "Web Custom Format 0", "Web Custom Format 1", etc) and then there is another format ("Web Custom Format Map") whose data specifies what actual clipboard format names those point to. See [this reply](https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/393#issuecomment-1064751823) for more on that.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/393#issuecomment-1099335611
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <w3c/editing/issues/393/1099335611@github.com>
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2022 15:59:26 UTC