Re: [w3c/editing] Universal interface to modify content in a JS editor from unrelated JS code. (Issue #551)

GaurangTandon left a comment (w3c/editing#551)

Thanks for trying out the updated fork. On Wordgard: the same behavior exists if we copy text from Gmail's New Message box and paste it into Wordgard (at least on Chrome), so it's not specifically an `execCommand` artifact.

Stepping back, I believe that the current proposal (https://github.com/w3c/input-events/pull/185) is not sufficient on its own, for the following reasons:

1. The non-normative note asks editor developers to treat a one-off synthetic event as equivalent to real user input, which goes beyond what the input events spec guarantees and can make their work harder. The onus should be on extensions to ensure they follow the spec when emulating user input.
2. The non-normative note does nothing for the many older editors which tend to be popular in corporate environments. Extension developers will continue to need a large bag of tricks to ensure broad compatibility. This favors large incumbent extensions and it discourages new extension authors. This ultimately reduces extension diversity for end users.
3. Modern editors can decide against the non-normative note. For example: Slate (which powers Discord.com among others) just started ignoring synthetic events breaking multiple extensions https://github.com/ianstormtaylor/slate/pull/6117 

There are also other issues, such as developer ergonomics, explained in [point 1 here](https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/551#issuecomment-6042702283). On your earlier point about exams and confidential fields, corporate environments and browsers already restrict extension scripts on sensitive domains via existing enterprise policies, and it would be the same here.

To conclude, I believe we need a change in the browser (such as a built-in API) to level the playing field for extension authors, avoid a constant chase between editors and extensions, and provide a great reliable text editing experience for users of such extensions.

What are your thoughts on that?

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/551#issuecomment-6059934684
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/editing/issues/551/6059934684@github.com>