Re: time at TPAC other than Wednesday?

> On Jan 9, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 7:12 PM, Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:49 AM, Grisha Lyukshin <glyuk@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> Hello Johannes,
>>> 
>>> I was the one to organize the meeting. To make things clear, this was an ad hoc meeting with the intent for the browsers to resolve any ambiguities and questions on beforeInput spec, which we did. This was the reason I invited representatives from each browser only.
>>> 
>> 
>> In so far as to clarify the questions you had at the last meeting that you needed to resolve with your individual teams, that you had indeed announced at the meeting that you would talk about --- I think that is fair enough. 
>> 
>> I am not 100% familiar with all processes of the W3C, but from what I can tell, I don't think you can treat it as having been a F2F meeting of this taskforce, but you can say that you had some informal talks with your and the other teams about this and now you come back to the taskforce with a proposal of how to resolve it.
>> 
>> Similarly, among JS editor developers we have been discussing informally about priorities and how we would like things to work. But those are informal meetings that cannot override the taskforce meetings.
> 
> Nobody said our F2F was of the task force.
> 
> Let me be blunt and say this.  I don't remember who nominated you to be the editor of all these documents and who approved it.  If you want to talk about the process, I'd like to start from there.
> 
>>> To your question about removing ContentEditable=”true”. The idea is consolidate multiple documents into a single editing specification document. We wanted to remove ContentEditable=”true” because it had no content there. So resolutions on CE=true from previous meetings remain unchanged. There is no point on having empty document floating on the web. So yeah, we wanted to remove the draft that has no content. We will merge Input Events and other ContentEditable specs into a single spec. We didn’t really have any discussions on execCommands spec.
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes, I don't think that part can reasonably be said to have been part of something you could resolve in a closed door, unannounced meeting among only browser vendors. 
>> 
>> Both the treatment of the various documents and especially contentEditable=True has been very controversial in this taskforce in the past, and I don't think you can just set aside all processes and consensus methods to change this.
>> 
>> So with all due respect, I don't think you can just delete it like that. Just as I cannot just delete part of the UI events spec because I have had a meeting with some people from TinyMCE and CKEditor and we decided we didn't like that part.
> 
> If the task force comes to a consensus that the document was useful, then we can just restore it.  The change was purely editorial in the nature.  First off, I don't remember when we agreed that we needed to have a separate spec for contenteditable=true separate from Aryeh's document.  If you thought the consensus of the last Paris F2F was to do that, then you either misunderstood the meeting's conclusion or I didn't object in time.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, this is about removing an empty document the task force never agreed to add in the first place.

Now I realize my Github commit message was very misleading from your perspective.  I apologize for causing the confusion.  Nonetheless, we don't need a separate contenteditable=true document since that's clearly defined in the HTML5 spec as well as Aryeh's spec.

- R. Niwa

Received on Saturday, 9 January 2016 21:18:08 UTC