Ok, great! So we all agree. Now what is the next step from here going forward? How do we determine if there is dissent? If there is not, what are the steps needed to get it into the specification? How about the other email about moving around SVGS, moving in front of stub elements and noneditable elements that are at the start of an editable element, etc.? On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name> wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Travis Leithead > <travis.leithead@microsoft.com> wrote: > > As far as I know, there is no actively maintained editing spec at the > > moment. Aryeh’s document is a great start but by no means should it be > > considered complete, or the standard to which you should target an > > implementation… I think we would [currently] prefer to discuss specific > > issues here on the mailing list until a regular editor can be found—so > > thanks for bringing this up! > > > > > > > > By the way, what you suggest sounds reasonable for the behavior. > > Agreed on all points, FWIW. I'm not totally sure what the most > sensible behavior is for backspacing into a non-editable element is, > but selecting is a reasonable idea that the spec already recommends > for tables (although I don't think anyone implements that point last I > checked). It makes it clear that the next backspace will delete the > whole thing, which would otherwise be very surprising -- e.g., suppose > it were a simple run of text that wasn't visually distinguishable from > the surrounding editable content. > -- Johannes Wilm http://www.johanneswilm.org tel US: +1 (520) 399 8880 tel NO: +47 94109013 tel DE: +49 176 370 18082
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:55:49 UTC