.org public-editing...@w3.org, Julie Parent
jpar...@gmail.com, public-indie...@w3.org public-indie-
u...@w3.org, public-webapps public-webapps@w3.org
Date: 09/19/2014 03:56 PM
Subject: RE: User Intentions Explainer (was: List of Intentions)
I agree that we can divide this work, but so far I
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger sch...@us.ibm.com
wrote:
So, you want to modify contenteditable to minimum. What will that do to
existing apps. that are built on it?
As has been mentioned before, the current (and broken) contenteditable will
stay the way it is, to make
I agree that we can divide this work, but so far I think we should do 2
first. Being able to remove browser functionality with a simple API is going to
be far quicker to implement (in browsers) and provides immediate benefit.
Solving Intentions will be a longer process, but is also important to
I think what I'm hearing in this conversation about the shape of a new
contentEditable is really that a simple minimal is not going to work.
Instead, having something like a delimited list will satisfy more people. See
the bug on GitHub [1] for more details.
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Johannes Wilm johan...@fiduswriter.org wrote:
These both look quite good!
On Example 3 on the commands explainer, I was wondering if it is the idea
that custom actions only can be triggered by specific key presses, whereas
for standard events are triggered by
On Thursday, 11 September 2014 at 17:38, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
On Sep 9, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Johannes Wilm johan...@fiduswriter.org
(mailto:johan...@fiduswriter.org) wrote:
Absolutely. if this division means we can get into a saner place faster
(and with a higher likelihood that it will
On Sep 9, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Johannes Wilm johan...@fiduswriter.org wrote:
Absolutely. if this division means we can get into a saner place faster (and
with a higher likelihood that it will actually happen) then I am all for it.
Of course the long-term future of the web should be taken into
On Monday, 8 September 2014 at 20:55, Johannes Wilm wrote:
If we include deletion/backspace and input text, that will then also mean
merging of paragraphs (and other nodes) when the caret is at the beginning of
a second paragraph and the backspace key is being hit?
Definitely. It’s all
On Tuesday, 9 September 2014 at 11:13, Frederico Knabben wrote:
I don’t think that browsers having time/will for it today is a good
argumentation for not doing it. The specs have a critical and noble scope, of
serving as reference for the future of the web. We’re talking about the
future
I'm not sure if I remember correctly, but I believe that after long
discussions we left the question what should contenteditable=minimal be?
unanswered. First the intention events lists should be created, so we can
see what needs to be handled. And this is what Ben Peters is working on.
Still we
Absolutely. if this division means we can get into a saner place faster
(and with a higher likelihood that it will actually happen) then I am all
for it.
Of course the long-term future of the web should be taken into
consideration as well, and as I understand it, this could be part of the
second
Pretty good docs, Ben.
I have comments mostly about Issue 2
(http://w3c.github.io/editing-explainer/#h_issue_2).
As long as actions are well documented, browsers can provide defaults that will
fit 90% of the *good quality* content creation requirements out there.
Additionally just
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Frederico Knabben f.knab...@cksource.com
wrote:
snip
IMHO, the following are the minimal features that it should provide:
- Selection: UI (e.g. caret), creation (e.g. mouse) and modifications
(e.g. arrows)
- Focus (probably part of Selection, but it's so
These both look quite good!
On Example 3 on the commands explainer, I was wondering if it is the idea
that custom actions only can be triggered by specific key presses, whereas
for standard events are triggered by intentions. So say that we listen
for CTRL+C to trigger our custom intention
There is now an Editing Explainer [1] and a User Intentions Explainer [2],
which should help scope the problems and help us drive forward on both areas. I
haven't done much to fine tune them yet, but please let me know if you have
feedback on this split from the initial Commands Explainer
: Jason White [mailto:ja...@jasonjgw.net]
Sent: Saturday, August 9, 2014 4:56 PM
To: public-indie...@w3.org
Cc: public-editing...@w3.org; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: User Intentions Explainer (was: List of Intentions)
[Cross-posting the comments below per Janina's thoughtful request
[Cross-posting the comments below per Janina's thoughtful request.]
I concur with Janina's insightful remark [at the Indie-UI teleconference on
Thursday] that the explainer could evolve into a (potentially cross-group)
requirements document. This raises several issues.
1. Harmonization of
Subject: User Intentions Explainer (was: List of Intentions)
Cross-posted: Editing TF, IndieUI TF, WebApps WG
In order to solve the broad issue of User Intentions, we have compiled below a
list of User Intentions derived from all of the sources of intention-style
events that I am aware of. I
From: Julie Parent jpar...@google.com
This is a great list, and I agree it is the right starting point.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Ben Peters ben.pet...@microsoft.com wrote:
* Activate / Invoke
* Expand
* Collapse
* Dismiss
* Media next/previous/start/stop/pause
* Rotate
Cross-posted?: Editing TF, IndieUI TF, WebApps WG
In order to solve the broad issue of User Intentions, we have compiled below a
list of User Intentions derived from all of the sources of intention-style
events that I am aware of. I agree with Julie that some of the events below are
not in
On Aug 4, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Ben Peters ben.pet...@microsoft.com wrote:
Cross-posted: Editing TF, IndieUI TF, WebApps WG
In order to solve the broad issue of User Intentions, we have compiled below
a list of User Intentions derived from all of the sources of intention-style
events that I
21 matches
Mail list logo
