Change name of contentEditable=typing to contentEditable=intent

[johanneswilm]

Besides the name change, this means that

a) There will not be any caret movement, which closes issue #58

b) There will not be any automatic change to the DOM structure through user input. This means that IME inline text input will be handled without making any changes to the DOM structure (ShadowDom or similar), which closes issue #57 .

c) overtype mode will be implemented entirely in userspace, which closes issue #55

[rniwa]

I don't think we should use the name intent. We had a long discussion to avoid using the name intent to avoid the confusion with Web Intent.

[johanneswilm]

what alternative name would you suggest?

[rniwa]

@hober

[johanneswilm]

@fredck

[johanneswilm]

I propose cE=intentions as a new name, but I am up to any other name as long as long as it's descriptive of what the spec is about. I agree that naming conflicts with other specs should be avoided.

[johanneswilm]

I reread @fredck 's email to there list where he presented this name change proposal. Apparently he seems to have recalled the end of the discussion differently.

Introduce contenteditable=“intent”

This is something discussed a lot previously with Ben and in a very advanced stage. This module would enable the Intent API into cE. With this, no behaviour is expected in the editable but a strong events API of user “intents” take place. The behaviour would be then implemented by JavaScript developers on top of the events.

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-editing-tf/2015Jul/0007.html

So far, you two @fredck and @rniwa have been the only ones with an opinion on the name of this feature (at least in this round). If the two of you could come up with a new alternative name, then I think there is a fair chance that will go through without opposition.

[rniwa]

Since the purpose of this mode is to only fire events and not modify DOM, perhaps contenteditable=eventonly would work.

[johanneswilm]

Sounds good to me.

[fredck]

Since the idea of modularity is to stack features (for example contenteditable="events typing enter"), I would avoid the "only" thing otherwise we would also allow for "typingonly", "enteronly", etc. So maybe contenteditable="events" seems to be more appropriate.

[johanneswilm]

True, that makes sense. @rniwa would "events" also work for you?

[rniwa]

Sure.