Re: [w3c/editing] [charter] execCommand spec should be in scope (Issue #432)

> I'm not sure who was at that meeting, but I don't think that's an accurate summary of how browsers at large feel about these APIs. Not then and not now. (I recall discussing this at the time inside Mozilla and there definitely wasn't agreement.)

Mozilla did not participate at that time, if I recall correctly. This was mainly Edge/Safari/Chrome and JavaScript developers. Were any of you at any of those Editing Taskforce meetings back then?

I am only trying to regurgitate the arguments given by other browser people in the past and I am concerned about us finally getting to a place where JavaScript editors can work, even with IMEs.

We may recall things differently, and that is OK. The important part is that there is consensus moving forward. I take it then that Apple's position is now that you are willing to implement a more fully developed execCommand spec and that Mozilla has the same position. And this has been discussed with those people who have been representing Apple in the taskforce over the past decade.

I don't know whether it is a hard requirement of a charter in the W3C system to state what one wants to do with the various specs, but at least ours has had two sections of specs: A) those that we promise to work through the W3C release system and B) those that might try to take through the system. Would you not agree that this would belong to category B? Unless the plan is to write the spec in a merely descriptive manner ("Safari does A, Chrome does B, Firefox does C"), there will be some challenges to make browsers behave the same (and thereby follow a specific spec).

If you propose to put it into [section 3.1 of the charter](https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/editing/blob/gh-pages/charter-drafts/editing-2023.html#normative), the specs for which we do give an expected completion date, then I'd want to know what time you expect it to be completed by, as well as which ones are going to be the two implementations, etc. and I think we will need to take this proposal up at the next call (in July).

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/432#issuecomment-1593190165
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/editing/issues/432/1593190165@github.com>