Hi Piotr, All,
This is a reminder the W3C's Patent Policy has a goal of assuring W3C
Recommendations can be implemented Royalty-Free and this requires all
spec contributions include a commitment to that policy. This topic was
last discussed in September 2013 and I encourage all Contributors and
Editors to read it in its entirety. Here is a short excerpt:
[[
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JulSep/0654.html>
...
All Participants in a given Working Group have made a commitment to
the W3C Patent Policy (in particular, the provisions regarding
licensing obligations), but only for the Recommendations of that
particular Working Group. In general, other parties have not made the
same commitment for those same deliverables, although they MAY make
this commitment if they wish. Similarly, W3C may request that they
make such a commitment (see instructions for licensing commitments
from non-W3C Members). This means that the Working Group should
consider very carefully any contribution from a non-Participant before
including it in a document intended to become a W3C Recommendation.
]]
Piotr, All - before a proposal/contribution from you - or any other
non-WG member - can be included in a specification, we must have a
proper patent commitment from your organization via
<http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/42538/nmlc>. I will followup
separately with you re how you can make such a commitment.
Editors - please do _not_ include any contributions from non-WG unless
you are sure they have made a patent commitment. In the event you are
unsure, please notify me.
For a list of WebApps' Members and participants see
<http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/42538/status>.
-Thanks, AB
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: CommandEvent for user intentions
Resent-Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 15:24:09 +0000
Resent-From: public-webapps@w3.org
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 13:02:39 +0200
From: Piotr Koszuliński <p.koszulin...@cksource.com>
To: Ben Peters <ben.pet...@microsoft.com>
CC: Julie Parent <jpar...@gmail.com>, Johannes Wilm
<johan...@fiduswriter.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
I wrote a longer reply in the contentEditable=minimal thread, which
touches some aspects of command events. Actually, before some stable
point about cE=minimal is reached I feel that it may be hard to design
command events in a way that both are interoperable. Command events
should be an extension to cE=minimal making it possible to create
advanced solutions on top of it. Therefore, it may be beneficial to
discuss both of them in one thread.
But for now, here are some additional thoughts which I haven't included
in the email about cE=minimal.
1. It should be possible to modify selection and DOM in a command event
listener, but leave the action to the browser. Browser should perform
the action on the updated selection and DOM. Example - I want to
transform "* " to a list when user types additional character. So I
would listen to keyboard event, check if two previous characters are "*
", replace them with a list and place selection inside <li>. But I want
browser to perform character insertion so I don't have to handle undo
manager, scrolling to show caret, etc. There are of course other ways to
achieve the same, but this seems to be the cleanest.
2. It's not totally necessary, but it would be nice if command event
would also carry an information about its future result. For example
command fired for up-arrow key could carry a range with the proposed
position of caret. So if I don't agree with browser implementation,
because for example it enters a non-editable region, I can check that
and handle this specific case by myself. Since there's no easy
JavaScript solution for handling up/down arrow keys such information
would allow us to focus only on these specific behaviours we don't like.
--
Piotrek Koszuliński
CKEditor JavaScript Lead Developer
