> On May 27, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Travis Leithead <travis.leith...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > I believed the use-cases for avoiding UI clashes between site-driven > auto-complete lists and IME auto-complete boxes is still a valid use case, > and I think the spec is still valid to try to push to recommendation. > However, I'd also like to follow up on usage of the ms- prefixed API so that > I can get an idea of what its real usage is.
I agree avoiding UI clashes between auto-completions of IME and web page is a great use case but I'm not convinced that exposing ClientRect for IME is the right API as many Web developers aren't even aware of UI challenges IME imposes. For example, a similar UI challenge emerges when dealing with auto-corrections in grammar/spell checking features as well. It would be ideal if IME and spell/grammar corrections are handled in a similar manner so that Web apps supporting either feature will "just work" with both features. - R. Niwa
