This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 11224 - There is no way to save changes made to content tagged as contenteditable="true" other than with javascript (which makes it inaccessible)
Summary: There is no way to save changes made to content tagged as contenteditable="tr...
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: LC1 HTML5 spec (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
Depends on:
Reported: 2010-11-04 18:09 UTC by Laurent Goderre
Modified: 2011-08-04 05:17 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:


Description Laurent Goderre 2010-11-04 18:09:27 UTC
The contenteditable attribute is a great idea and could lead to next generation rich text editor on the web but right now there is now way to do so without javascript. Ideally there would be a way to submit the content of a contenteditable with selection information. This would allow to create a rich text editor that works with javascript turn off.
Comment 1 Anne 2010-11-04 22:19:53 UTC
This is like saying WAI-ARIA is inaccessible.
Comment 2 Laurent Goderre 2010-11-05 14:30:37 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> This is like saying WAI-ARIA is inaccessible.

WAI-ARIA provides a bit more accessibility to the previously problematic JavaScript. However, JavaScript use is the choice of the user and an application must provide functionality when JavaScript is turned off.
Comment 3 Anne 2010-11-05 14:35:29 UTC
An application without programming language? That would be odd.
Comment 4 Laurent Goderre 2010-11-05 14:50:17 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> An application without programming language? That would be odd.

The programming language would be at server-side.
Comment 5 Anne 2010-11-05 16:21:12 UTC
We moved on somewhat since '95.
Comment 6 Laurent Goderre 2010-11-05 16:52:55 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> We moved on somewhat since '95.

It's still the user's choice....just like users have the right to not want to use Adobe Flash Player when surfing the web. Not providing javascript-free alternative is against progressive enhancement
Comment 7 Anne 2010-11-05 16:58:26 UTC
Proprietary plugins are somewhat different imo from things that are an intrinsic part of the platform. Anyway, I am out of here.
Comment 8 Laura Carlson 2010-11-05 20:03:45 UTC

How Many Users Support JavaScript? By Adrian Roselli.
"...there are still users without JavaScript support, for a variety of reasons, and they are a significant number of users. Neglecting them as you build web sites and applications is short-sighted and just bad practice. This has been true for over 15 years, so it's reasonable to expect it will be true for years to come."
Comment 9 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-12-29 08:15:01 UTC
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:

Status: Did Not Understand Request
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: I don't understand. Could you elaborate? What is the problem that needs solving here?
Comment 10 Michael[tm] Smith 2011-08-04 05:17:25 UTC
mass-move component to LC1