> On Jan 9, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@apple.com> wrote: > > >> 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.
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
