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

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

From: Ben Peters <Ben.Peters@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:55:46 +0000
To: Piotr Koszuliński <p.koszulinski@cksource.com>, Frederico Knabben <f.knabben@cksource.com>
CC: Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org>, "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>
Message-ID: <b3d82e5704f04973b7971225adc97d19@BLUPR03MB437.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
I agree that we can divide this work, but so far I think we should do "2" first. Being able to remove browser functionality with a simple API is going to be far quicker to implement (in browsers) and provides immediate benefit. Solving Intentions will be a longer process, but is also important to really enable performance and "extensible-web" scenarios.

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:28 AM, Piotr Koszuliński <p.koszulinski@cksource.com> wrote:
> 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 | Facebook | Google+ | LinkedIn
Received on Friday, 19 September 2014 20:56:20 UTC

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