On 9/14/11 4:30 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Since some related functionality was included (at one point) in the
HTML5 spec, it seems like we should ask the HTML WG for feedback on
Aryeh's email.
Aryeh told me there are some related bugs:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13425
Maciej, Sam, Ruby - do have a sense if the HTML WG has a (strong)
opinion on Aryeh's question below?
-Art Barstow
On 9/13/11 4:27 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
For the last several months, I was working on a new specification,
which I hosted on aryeh.name. Now we've created a new Community Group
at the W3C to host it:
http://aryeh.name/spec/editing/editing.html
http://www.w3.org/community/editing/
Things are still being worked out, but one issue is what mailing list
to use for discussion. I don't want to create new tiny mailing lists
-- I think we should reuse some existing established list where the
stakeholders are already present. Previously I was using the whatwg
list, but as a token of good faith toward the W3C, I'd prefer to
switch to public-webapps, even though my spec is not a WebApps WG
deliverable. (If it ever does move to a REC track spec, though, which
the Community Group process makes easy, it will undoubtedly be in the
WebApps WG.)
Does anyone object to using this list to discuss the editing spec?
I'm happy to see this spec continued on the webapps WG.
I don't see Shelley Powers' objection being addressed. She has expressed
concerns that the HTML Editing APIs have been taken out of W3C WGs and
associated processes.
Apple, Google and Microsoft representatives have vetoed rich text
editing as a supported use case for public-canvas-api, the Google/WHATWG
editing specification is now the -only- supported solution for
developers to author editing environments.
Because this is the only approved method of editing HTML content, and
I've seen -no- controversy around the specification itself, I'd like
Shelley Powers' position reconsidered by the editors.
Were Apple, Google and Microsoft to loosen their position on rich text
editing, such that authors can proceed with rich text editing that does
not rely on this specification, I'd be less concerned. I don't think
that'll happen for the next ~18 months.
Aryeh, consider releasing more authority to the W3C process. The
specification is fairly mature, I'm not seeing push-back on this spec,
and I know that there are several voices which would better served
through formal process. Also, try to get this onto the hg repositories,
in the same style that DOM4 has been entered. It works well for
maintaining your CC0/WHATWG labels while also providing the W3C with a
publishable draft under their own restrictions.
-Charles
