- From: Simon Pieters <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 04:39:49 -0700
- To: w3c/editing <editing@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3c/editing/issues/432/1589131466@github.com>
> @zcorpan OK, and is someone from Mozilla willing to step forward as the maintainer I'll check. > and do you have a promise from a second browser engine to implement the execCommand spec? In this case all browsers already implement the API, and the question is how much interest is there in ironing out interop issues with it (which has inherent web compat risk and opportunity cost). It's tricky, certainly, but it doesn't follow that there shouldn't exist a normative spec. > The reason I am asking is that other browser engines previously made it very clear that they would not make changes to their browsers based on what that a execCommand spec says, but that they may make changes if it can be shown that multiple other browser engines handle some case differently than they do. IMO the latter means that there is some interest, but I'll let other browser vendors speak for themselves. > That's why we have had discussions about specific issues on Github or the mailing list over the last few years and some of those discussions have ended up with a change to the execCommand spec document. That's great. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/432#issuecomment-1589131466 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <w3c/editing/issues/432/1589131466@github.com>
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2023 11:39:54 UTC