On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On 24/06/2014 20:09 , Ben Peters wrote:
>
>> Problems:
>> * ContentEditable is too complex and buggy to be usable as-is
>> * ContentEditable does not easily enable the wide range of editing
>> scenarios
>>
>
> Complex and buggy aren't necessa
Oh right, of course. Thank-you.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Ben Peters
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Olivier F wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Julie Parent
> wrote:
> >> An app can have a cursor that isn't a native browser cursor. For
&
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Julie Parent wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Olivier F wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Julie Parent wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Ben Peters
>>> wrote:
>&g
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Julie Parent wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Ben Peters
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Julie Parent wrote:
>> > If Intention events are (temporarily) moved out of scope,
>>
>> I don’t think I’d say they’re out of scope, just that they
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Ben Peters
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> >> On Jun 12, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Olivier F wrote:
>
> >> Imagine as well a situation where a UA creates a new way to paste
> content, and to prevent confusion
I have been reading this and have a comment:
http://w3c.github.io/editing-explainer/commands-explainer.html
"Issue 11: We may not need contentEditable=minimal. The same thing can be
accomplished by listening for commands and calling preventDefault on all of
them."
I think we need contentEditable=
Hello Everyone,
The idea of a contentEditable spec that is usable for developers gives me
so much hope that I am drawn to make my very first comment on a W3 list.
First, thank-you Ben Peters for the original post.
I am an independent web developer who is frustrated because I feel there is
a whol
