W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: User Intentions Explainer (was: List of Intentions)

From: Piotr Koszuliński <p.koszulinski@cksource.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 13:28:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFk9nezoaeCpwmbbp7aDd8fZhP43VCyY1cyZ3mA2dAJfXvh-Lw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frederico Knabben <f.knabben@cksource.com>
Cc: Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org>, Ben Peters <Ben.Peters@microsoft.com>, "public-editing-tf@w3.org" <public-editing-tf@w3.org>, Julie Parent <jparent@gmail.com>, "public-indie-ui@w3.org" <public-indie-ui@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
I'm not sure if I remember correctly, but I believe that after long
discussions we left the question "what should contenteditable=minimal be?"
unanswered. First the intention events lists should be created, so we can
see what needs to be handled. And this is what Ben Peters is working on.

Still we may also take in consideration that there are limited resources
> available for working on the specs. Therefore the whole work could be
> separated into two *independent* topics:
>  1. Intention events + execCommand.
>  2. contenteditable=“minimal”


That's what I was proposing as well - to have the base (which consists
mainly of fixed selection API and intention events) ready as soon as
possible, so hopefully browser makers can start implementing it and then
we, editor makers, can start using it. This part will already improve the
current situation a lot, but it's itself pretty hard as we can see. Then,
if anyone will be still interested, a specification for default browser's
actions can be created. It's a huge task and there are a lot of
controversial topics like the famous delete/backspace behaviour when
merging blocks and that's why I would not recommend starting these
discussions right now.



On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Frederico Knabben <f.knabben@cksource.com>
wrote:

> On Tuesday, 9 September 2014 at 11:13, Frederico Knabben wrote:
>
> I don’t think that browsers having time/will for it today is a good
> argumentation for not doing it. The specs have a critical and noble scope,
> of serving as reference for the future of the web. We’re talking about the
> future after all.
>
>  Still we may also take in consideration that there are limited resources
> available for working on the specs. Therefore the whole work could be
> separated into two *independent* topics:
>
>  1. Intention events + execCommand.
>  2. contenteditable=“minimal”
>
> “1” should be concluded asap, because it is the foundation for the success
> of “2”. It is also compatible with the current contenteditable=“true”, so
> it should enable sites/frameworks to fix the current status of things.
>
> “2” is the ideal world. Something that would require much more energy to
> get done right. Still in the beginning, there should be an agreement on
> what’s in and what’s out. Following that, several specs can get started,
> each one defining the default behavior we want for each of the features we
> want “minimal” to have. The first ofc, would be “Selection” (and “Focus”!).
>



-- 
Piotrek Koszuliński
CKEditor JavaScript Lead Developer
--
CKSource - http://cksource.com
--
Follow CKEditor on: Twitter <http://twitter.com/ckeditor> | Facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/ckeditor> | Google+
<https://plus.google.com/107736718646302128806> | LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/cksource>
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2014 11:28:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:26 UTC