----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert O'Callahan" <[email protected]> > To: "Ehsan Akhgari" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Aryeh Gregor" <[email protected]>, "whatwg" > <[email protected]>, "Ryosuke Niwa" <[email protected]>, > "Ehsan Akhgari" <[email protected]>, "Hallvord R. M. Steen" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:48:41 PM > Subject: Re: [whatwg] Ongoing work on an editing commands (execCommand()) > specification > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Ehsan Akhgari < [email protected] > > wrote: > > > > You're proposing to remove something from Gecko and Webkit which has > been supported for many years (about 8 years for Gecko). We do not > have the ability to make sure that nobody is relying on this in any of > the billions of available web sites. Unless you have a very strong > argument on why we should remove support for an API as old as this > one, I'm not sure that we're going to do that, and I think that Webkit > might have similar constraints as well. So far, the argument that > you've proposed is extrapolating the assumption that this API doesn't > have any users from three implementations which use the editing APIs. > I'm afraid you should have a _much_ larger sample if you want to draw > this conclusion. > > I would personally very much like to get one of the two modes killed > in favor of the other, since that means an easier spec to implement, > less code to maintain, and easier life for me. But I think we should > carefully think about what this would means for potential users who > are using the CSS mode in their applications. > > > We can deprecate the CSS mode and leave it unspecified, without > removing it from Webkit and Gecko. That won't hurt interop since > anyone using it is probably UA-sniffing already. > > If sometime in the future we decide that a "CSS mode" is worth having, > then someone can start writing a spec for it then.
Yes, that would make sense, I think. -- Ehsan Akhgari [email protected] http://ehsanakhgari.org/
