> On Jan 8, 2016, at 7:12 PM, Johannes Wilm <johan...@fiduswriter.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:49 AM, Grisha Lyukshin <gl...@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. - R. Niwa
