I'm all in favor of a new API as well. Sincerely, James Greene
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Aryeh Gregor <a...@aryeh.name> wrote: > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Glenn Maynard <gl...@zewt.org> wrote: > > I think I'd suggest avoiding the mess of execCommand altogether, and add > new > > methods, eg. window.copy() and window.cut() (or maybe just one method, > with > > a "cut" option). execCommand is such a nonsensical way to expose an API > > that trying to stay consistent with its commands is probably not much of > a > > win. > > I'm inclined to agree, FWIW. If the command is really strictly > editor-related, and makes sense only in conjunction with an editor > based on existing commands, I would add it to execCommand for > consistency (like defaultParagraphSeparator or fontSizePt). But > anything else should stay far away. (Actually, if contenteditable > wasn't an unsalvageable trainwreck, I would rather write a new API > that actually follows JS norms, like window.editor.bold() or similar, > but it is, so there's no point in doing anything beyond *maybe* trying > to get it a bit more interoperable.) > >