- From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:35:39 -0800
- To: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
- Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:36:35 UTC
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> > wrote: > > Historically, one of my biggest frustrations with contentEditable is that > > you have to take it all or none. The lack of configurability is > frustrating > > as a developer. Maybe the solution is to come up with a lower level set > of > > editing primitives in place of contentEditable instead of trying to > extend > > it though. > > Yes, that's definitely something we need to do. There are algorithms > I've defined that would probably be really useful to web authors, like > "wrap a list of nodes" or some version of "set the value of the > selection" (= inline formatting algorithm). I've been holding off on > exposing these to authors because I don't know if these algorithms are > correct yet, and I don't want implementers jumping the gun and > exposing them before using them internally so they're well-tested. I > expect they'll need to be refactored a bunch once implementers try > actually reimplementing their editing commands in terms of them, and > don't want to break them for authors when that happens. > Yup. Make sense. I agree that with editing we're not at a point where it's at all clear what a good lower-level API would be.
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:36:35 UTC