Apologies in advance if this covers old ground, it appears I missed some
e-mails in the last round of e-mails about this topic.
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Opera wants to support this feature as well in due course, so I don't
think we would mind it being added to HTML5.
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Regarding http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=2800to=2801, my
requests:
1. Change the literals true/false to on/off, leaving the DOM values
Boolean.
There are three of these attributes so far:
autocomplete = on/off
The discussion on spellcheck= focused on two ideas; using spellcheck=
mostly as specced here:
http://damowmow.com/playground/spellcheck.txt
...and doing something with lang=. The idea of using lang= had
problems that were pointed out by several people, most notably, the issue
that the
Regarding http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=2800to=2801, my
requests:
1. Change the literals true/false to on/off, leaving the DOM values
Boolean.
2. Check the spelling of the passage (asits!) :0)
3. Say that the default behavior for BODY is on and the default behavior
for
Kristof Zelechovski wrote on 2/12/2009 6:24 AM:
Stretching it a bit, a user's language always matches the site's,
otherwise the user would not be able to submit to the site anything
that makes sense, except when the site is a gateway for submissions
to an uninvolved third party in which
The server has two ways of knowing the user's preferred language: the user's
preferences and the browser settings, in that order.
Submitting in two languages usually needs two controls, one for English and
one for German, with appropriate markup. The server must be prepared to
handle this use
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Kristof Zelechovski
giecr...@stegny.2a.pl wrote:
The server has two ways of knowing the user's preferred language: the user's
preferences and the browser settings, in that order.
Both of which are often wrong. Users may be multilingual, and
multiple users may
The language attribute can be changed at run time if needed. It requires an
additional event that can be called langmismatch. Of course, a more
traditional selector is also a solution. If the site is primary English,
with Hebrew fragments here and there, it is not much harm that the fragments
Kristof Zelechovski wrote on 2/12/2009 9:05 AM:
Markup for German AND English submissions at the same time, as per your
request:
LABEL LANG=de Inhalt: TEXTAREA NAME=INHALT /TEXTAREA /LABEL
LABEL LANG=de Contents: TEXTAREA NAME=CONTENTS /TEXTAREA /LABEL
In my case, we have a single field,
-Original Message-
From: whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org [mailto:whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org]
On Behalf Of Bil Corry
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 5:05 PM
To: wha...@whatwg.org
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Spellchecking mark III
Kristof Zelechovski wrote on 2/12/2009 9:05 AM:
Markup
Křištof Želechovski wrote on 2/12/2009 10:15 AM:
The UI you described is inconsistent and it should be fixed.
Inconsistent with which UI standard?
- Bil
I do not know much about UI standards but the rule that the answer should be
formulated in the language of the question is rather straightforward. It is
just common sense. Exceptions are questions like How is that in German?.
Chris
Kristof Zelechovski wrote on 2/12/2009 11:06 AM:
I do not know much about UI standards but the rule that the answer should be
formulated in the language of the question is rather straightforward. It is
just common sense. Exceptions are questions like How is that in German?.
No one can
The majority of users will answer the question in the language of the
question, this is the normal reaction. Of course there is no guarantee but
the odds of getting the expected result are high. Assuming that the user's
input will actually be read by somebody, providing proper markup will help
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Křištof Želechovski k...@mimuw.edu.plwrote:
*No, the _original_ use was to turn it on on fields where it would
otherwise have been on.
*
I do not understand. If spell checking would be on, why turn it on
explicitly?
I mistyped. The last word should
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Křištof Želechovski k...@mimuw.edu.plwrote:
Spelling quizzes are an artificial example; they are not interesting once
spell checking is commonly available because the user can cheat by
temporarily using another control that is being checked.
They can cheat
2009/1/27 Křištof Želechovski k...@mimuw.edu.pl
The original use of the spellcheck attribute was to switch spell checking
off
No, the _original_ use was to turn it on on fields where it would otherwise
have been on.
(I think we both believe it should generally be on). Using a private
2009/1/26 Křištof Želechovski k...@mimuw.edu.pl
Q: Should the localization influence the spell checking mechanism?
A: Definitely, since the user is likely to write most messages in his
preferred UI language.
Which is why this is a perfectly valid input for the heuristic the UA uses
to
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Křištof Želechovski kri...@wp.pl wrote:
Gmail can use
1. the localisation preferences chosen by the user in GMail configuration,
2. the localisation preferences chosen by the user in the browser
configuration
to determine the what language the user is likely
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
In practice, I think the only way to avoid this problem is for
browsers to implement content-sniffing techniques of some kind to
figure out the language, at least per field but ideally on a
word-by-word basis. If
Peter Kasting ha scritto:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino
alex.baldacch...@email.it mailto:alex.baldacch...@email.it wrote:
Why not to let the user choose the language, as it happens in word
processors? A UA can't choose accurately whether, for instance,
Probably. However, establishing that the lang attribute is the
first-choice language to check (which wouldn't prevent the UA from
providing other choices, or just ignoring such behaviour due to a
user preference, or using other dictionaries too -- and that might
be suggested in a note on
Kornel Lesiński ha scritto:
Probably. However, establishing that the lang attribute is the
first-choice language to check (which wouldn't prevent the UA from
providing other choices, or just ignoring such behaviour due to a
user preference, or using other dictionaries too -- and that might be
Peter Kasting wrote:
2009/1/20 Mikko Rantalainen mikko.rantalai...@peda.net
I agree. I think that specifying the spellcheck attribute would be a
mistake. It allows only forcing the automatic spell checking on or off
but it doesn't help a bit to allow mixing different languages on a
single
Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
My second sentence was trying to argument that page author has no
business forcing the spellchecking on if the page author cannot force
the spellchecking language! Especially for a case where the page
contains a mix of multiple languages.
Not really. Consider e.g.
James Graham wrote:
Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
My second sentence was trying to argument that page author has no
business forcing the spellchecking on if the page author cannot force
the spellchecking language! Especially for a case where the page
contains a mix of multiple languages.
Not
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Mikko Rantalainen
mikko.rantalai...@peda.net wrote:
If the browser does not know the language of the content, how on earth
is it supposed to *correctly* spellcheck it? I'm daily hitting a
situation where browser is trying to spellcheck content with incorrect
Mikko Rantalainen wrote on 1/21/2009 5:03 AM:
For another example, consider the case where I post on a Swedish forum
in English, knowing that the general level of English in Sweden is
excellent and in any case better than the level of my Swedish.
I agree. However, if the forum maintainer
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Mikko Rantalainen
mikko.rantalai...@peda.net wrote:
If the browser does not know the language of the content, how on earth
is it supposed to *correctly* spellcheck it?
As others have noted, the user's preferences are generally a better
indicator of how
Aryeh Gregor ha scritto:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Mikko Rantalainen
mikko.rantalai...@peda.net wrote:
If the browser does not know the language of the content, how on earth
is it supposed to *correctly* spellcheck it? I'm daily hitting a
situation where browser is trying to
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino
alex.baldacch...@email.it wrote:
Why not to let the user choose the language, as it happens in word
processors? A UA can't choose accurately whether, for instance, color is a
correct American English, a wrong British English, or even
Křištof Želechovski wrote:
Spell checking of regions of text should be governed by the lang attribute,
if any, and browser preferences; it would be switched off for language tags
the spell-checking engine does not support, including custom ones.
It is extremely annoying how Safari, although
2009/1/20 Mikko Rantalainen mikko.rantalai...@peda.net
I agree. I think that specifying the spellcheck attribute would be a
mistake. It allows only forcing the automatic spell checking on or off
but it doesn't help a bit to allow mixing different languages on a
single page.
I don't see how
Spell checking of regions of text should be governed by the lang attribute,
if any, and browser preferences; it would be switched off for language tags
the spell-checking engine does not support, including custom ones.
It is extremely annoying how Safari, although (supposedly) localized to
Polish,
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:38 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The same engineers have since implemented this feature in Chrome also,
Incorrect. One engineer implemented a crude hack in a small portion of the
Chromium glue code that implements a fraction of the spec -- enough to make
Gmail
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.orgwrote:
Actually I was just poking around and noticed that we don't actually
support variation of spellcheck values within different parts of an editable
element. So I won't make any claims about how hard that is to support.
On Dec 30, 2008, at 7:20 AM, Kornel Lesiński wrote:
On 30.12.2008, at 13:45, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
I have therefore not added this feature to HTML5 for the time
being. If
there is more interest in this feature, please speak up.
This seems stupid. If I want to have spell-checking, let
On 31.12.2008, at 15:15, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
It does make sense I guess, that certain fields should not be
subject to automatic spellchecking. However, three counterpoints:
1) At least Safari's spellchecking won't mark a word misspelled
until you hit a space; fields that contain data
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
2) The proposal Hixie linked seems way overengineered for this purpose.
First, it allows spellchecking to be explicitly turned on, potentially
overriding normal defaults, but that seems wrong; an input type=email
should
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 3:22 AM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
That handles some cases, but not others --- e.g. text boxes that contain
program code.
I run spell checkers on code blocks.
the number of misspellings that could have been avoided by using them
they're
2008/12/30 Giovanni Campagna scampa.giova...@gmail.com:
maybe we could just say that spellchecking is disabled when type is not text
(for email, uri and number you have validation) and when a pattern attribute
is specified
Personally, if I were to write Gionvanni Campagna into a multiline
text
On Dec 31, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
2) The proposal Hixie linked seems way overengineered for this
purpose. First, it allows spellchecking to be explicitly turned on,
potentially overriding normal
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Dec 31, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
A use case is editable program code, where spellchecking is disabled, but
where spellchecking is enabled inside comments. Maybe that sounds a little
far-fetched for
In 2006 I proposed the following spec for a spellcheck= attribute,
based on requests from the Google engineers then working on Firefox:
http://www.damowmow.com/playground/spellcheck.txt
The same engineers have since implemented this feature in Chrome also, and
Google does use this
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:38:42 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
In 2006 I proposed the following spec for a spellcheck= attribute,
based on requests from the Google engineers then working on Firefox:
http://www.damowmow.com/playground/spellcheck.txt
The same engineers have since
On 30 Dec 2008, at 11:38, Ian Hickson wrote:
In 2006 I proposed the following spec for a spellcheck= attribute,
based on requests from the Google engineers then working on Firefox:
http://www.damowmow.com/playground/spellcheck.txt
The same engineers have since implemented this feature in
On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:55 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:38:42 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
In 2006 I proposed the following spec for a spellcheck= attribute,
based on requests from the Google engineers then working on Firefox:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:55 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:38:42 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
In 2006 I proposed the following spec for a spellcheck= attribute,
based on requests from the
On 30.12.2008, at 13:45, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
I have therefore not added this feature to HTML5 for the time
being. If
there is more interest in this feature, please speak up.
This seems stupid. If I want to have spell-checking, let me. Don't
force it off. I don't see any reason to
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
It's useful for fields that contain non-textual content, e.g. product ID,
license plate number, CAPTCHA answer, etc.
Browser would mark these as misspelt, which might be confusing or at least
distracting.
this sounds
2008/12/30 timeless timel...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net
wrote:
It's useful for fields that contain non-textual content, e.g. product ID,
license plate number, CAPTCHA answer, etc.
Browser would mark these as misspelt, which might be
2008/12/31 timeless timel...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net
wrote:
It's useful for fields that contain non-textual content, e.g. product ID,
license plate number, CAPTCHA answer, etc.
Browser would mark these as misspelt, which might be
2008/12/31 Giovanni Campagna scampa.giova...@gmail.com
2008/12/30 timeless timel...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net
wrote:
It's useful for fields that contain non-textual content, e.g. product
ID,
license plate number, CAPTCHA answer, etc.
Robert O'Callahan ha scritto:
2008/12/31 Giovanni Campagna scampa.giova...@gmail.com
mailto:scampa.giova...@gmail.com
2008/12/30 timeless timel...@gmail.com mailto:timel...@gmail.com
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Kornel Lesiński
kor...@geekhood.net
Calogero Alex Baldacchino ha scritto:
The language to check might be choosen from several sources, such as
the 'lang' attribute of the contenteditable element itself, if
different from the document language. For instance, a blog editor's
interface document might not be translated in a
Ian Hickson wrote:
3. Otherwise, if the user has disabled the checking for this text,
then the checking is disabled.
4. Otherwise, if the user has forced the checking for this text to
always be enabled, then the checking is enabled.
5. Otherwise, if the element with which the
The more I think about this the more I believe that the correct
choise would be to describe the expected content more accurately.
The UA may then proceed to accurately turn spellchecking on or off.
The problem is that the lang attribute allows only stuff defined in
RFC 3066, which seems to
At 23:56 + UTC, on 2006-06-29, Ian Hickson wrote:
[...]
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
There's nothing really bad in allowing CSS to control behavior to some
extent.
CSS is the part of the document that can be disabled/replaced. If
disabling the author styles changes
58 matches
Mail list logo
