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

> I generally have little confidence in the timelines in W3C WG charters when specs are supposed to be done. As long as this spec is on the Rec track I would be satisfied.

Ok, so that should be possible by having the spec listed in 3.2 without a specific timeline. I don't know how common it is to not stick to the proposed timelines, but I will do my best to make us stick to the timelines that are now in the draft of the 2023 charter as I think they are reasonable. I would be afraid that it would cause a lot of stress to put some arbitrary date on the execCommand spec as it's much more of an unknown and there have been a lot of browser people in the past saying it's so complex that it is just impossible to ever fully complete. And if it turns out that you are able to deliver a spec that goes through to REC before the end of this charter (2025), then - congratulations, that's just great!

Your proposed process sounds fine to me. And it also sounds very similar to what was attempted by @ayg with the initial text and what we since at times have been doing with a few individual issues. We can break the document out into its own repository if you prefer that, or it can continue to live where it currently is. That I would say is up to you. You can, of course, take some of the issues you run into up at the monthly Editing Working Group calls, but if it turns out there are too many and we don't get to discuss the more current editing specs that are used or will be used by JavaScript editors of the future, I think it might be a better idea to have special calls set up just to discuss execCommand/contenteditable. But those are details that we can discuss then.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/432#issuecomment-1593280372
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/editing/issues/432/1593280372@github.com>