Dated June 2010... It appears someone raced me!
I look forward to seeing this implemented.
Only... One weakness in the existing document that might be addressed
as an upgrade to this specification at a later date: there appears
to be scant reference to methods of specifying date and time as
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
Allowing authors to define an undoscope inside an editing host appears to be
troublesome because user editing actions can modify the subtree of the host
in very complex ways, and it's hard to understand which node may be
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
Allowing authors to define an undoscope inside an editing host appears to
be
troublesome because user editing actions can modify the subtree of the
On 10/10/11 12:19 AM, Simon Pieters wrote:
0 negative intervals
0 cues skipped because field counts were different
That will teach me to proofread after posting. The real counts should be:
2227 negative intervals
6822 cues skipped because field counts were different
From which I conclude
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
It also means you can't support :read-write for contenteditable, because
that
would make selectors depend on style resolution. Is it just a
convenience measure so that you don't have to implement efficient
property
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Aryeh Gregor a...@aryeh.name wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@webkit.org wrote:
It also means you can't support :read-write for contenteditable, because
that
would make selectors depend on style resolution. Is it just a
Allowing authors to define an undoscope inside an editing host
appears to be
troublesome because user editing actions can modify the subtree of
the host
in very complex ways, and it's hard to understand which node may be
mutated
as a result of some editing actions or execCommand.
