Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove ContentEditableTrue #95

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 9, 2016
Merged

Conversation

rniwa
Copy link
Contributor

@rniwa rniwa commented Jan 9, 2016

Remove ContentEditableTrue spec since it doesn't have any content per 1/7 F2F meeting in Redmond.

@johanneswilm
Copy link
Contributor

Hey, what F2F meeting was this, and why wasn't this announced on the mailiing list of the taskforce?

I am generally not opposed to removing contentEditable=True, but if I remember correctly last time theme issue was discussed, there were some who felt very strongly that it should not be touched.

@johanneswilm
Copy link
Contributor

@rniwa The meeting notes don't seem to say anything about cE=True. Maybe there are some other meeting notes that cover this?

@rniwa
Copy link
Contributor Author

rniwa commented Jan 9, 2016

This was a cross-vendor F2F meeting we had in Redmond. In general, we shouldn't be posting an empty spec with no substance.

@rniwa rniwa reopened this Jan 9, 2016
rniwa added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 9, 2016
@rniwa rniwa merged commit 5d332c0 into w3c:gh-pages Jan 9, 2016
@johanneswilm
Copy link
Contributor

Hey @rniwa, let's ask the W3C what the proper procedures are.

I disagree that the document was empty and I emailed you and Gary, the organizer of the meeting, explaining the circumstances of the document yesterday. The question of whether contentEditable=True is outdated or not was something that was heavily discussed in the taskforce a few months ago, and there did not seem to be consensus either way.

@chaals
Copy link

chaals commented Jan 9, 2016

Yeah, the chairs are considering this.

The meeting was not in accordance with W3C process and most particularly does not suggest that any decision has consensus, so this "decision" is under active review.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants