Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
On Jun 25, 2006, at 11:59 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
...
But realistically, browsers won't allow the user to easily override
it if they want to, because any interface for doing that would be
absurd.
...
I'm sure there are other people that
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
Check spelling:
( ) Never
(*) As the page author suggests
( ) Always
But that really brings out the foolishness of the idea. I can imagine a
user looking at that option and thinking Duh - how on earth is the page
author ever going to know when and how I want spelling
Gervase Markham wrote:
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
Check spelling:
( ) Never
(*) As the page author suggests
( ) Always
This isn't actually strictly necessary at all - one can imagine the
setting being on a per field basis with the author value representing
the default and the user being able
James Graham wrote:
The only sensible use case that has been suggested so far is for online
email apps which allow 1 email addresses in an input type=text -
in this case none of the text will be recognized by the spellchecker vs.
an input type=text which contains an email subject line, which
On Jun 25, 2006, at 11:59 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
...
But realistically, browsers won't allow the user to easily override
it if they want to, because any interface for doing that would be
absurd.
...
* Status bar icon/text that indicates if spell checking is on or
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Quoting Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If this whole attribute rigmarole is merely about trying to distinguish
between an input type=text containing email addresses and one
containing a subject line, then it seems like a storm in a teacup to me.
Either people have
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
So I'm not sure about using CSS or XBL, but I do see a need coming
back where you can simple do:
foo { spellcheck:on; content:html-snippet }
... or something like that and have it globally declared for _every_
page that uses the property sheet instead of on
On Jun 24, 2006, at 17:02, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I could easily imagine authors wanting to disable spell checking
simply because the squiggly red underlines clash with their site's
colour scheme.
One way to deal with that problem is to ship browsers with spell
checking turned off. Web
Quoting Matthew Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So I'm not sure about using CSS or XBL, but I do see a need coming
back where you can simple do:
foo { spellcheck:on; content:html-snippet }
... or something like that and have it globally declared for _every_
page that uses the property sheet
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
On Jun 25, 2006, at 2:02 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
...
However, the proposed spellcheck attribute has one major advantage
over all of those: it's being designed to allow the user to easily
override it if they want to.
But realistically, browsers won't allow the user
)
but this is another story)
Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com
- Original Message -
From: Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David Hyatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Spellchecking proposal #2
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, David
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
Spellchecker looks like pure behavioral entity.
Behavior is generally handled exclusively by Javascript, but some
people have expressed that having to use script to enable spell checking
is highly undesirable.
So I would define this as:
style
#myeditor
{
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 12:16:09 +0700, Matthew Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But realistically, browsers won't allow the user to easily override it
if they want to, because any interface for doing that would be absurd.
Not necessarily.
Check spelling:
( ) Never
(*) As the page author
On Saturday 2006-06-24 11:45 +0700, Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
IMHO we should not rely on unspecified heuristics. In some browsers, they
work rather well, in some they might constantly fail. Leave heuristics for
invalid pages, quirks mode etc -- or document these heuristics.
I agree, but
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:27:33 +0700, Lachlan Hunt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once again, a CSS/XBL based approach would be better here.
I do not understand what you mean by a CSS/XBL approach in this context.
Moving the spellchecking control out of HTML into CSS or XBL binding.
--
Alexey
+1
I've read this discussion,but i do not understand exactly
why this should be denoted in markup.i do not understand why
it is needed anyway.is the lang attribute not sufficient?
what about denoting every paragraph in a document should be
spellchecked,and denoting every del not?
what do
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
I'd say that if the user has globally disabled spellchecking, the author
should not be able to override this. However, author's ability to
explicitly disable spellchecking on some elements is meant to improve
usability.
I might be persuaded to allow an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:27:33 +0700, Lachlan Hunt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once again, a CSS/XBL based approach would be ere.
I do not understand what you mean by a CSS/XBL approach in this
context.
Moving the spellchecking control out of HTML into CSS or XBL
Quoting Matthew Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:27:33 +0700, Lachlan Hunt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once again, a CSS/XBL based approach would be ere.
I do not understand what you mean by a CSS/XBL approach in this
context.
Moving the spellchecking
L. David Baron wrote:
The problem is that heuristics are only heuristics when they operate
on input written without knowledge of the heuristics. When the input
was written with knowledge of the heuristics, they become de facto
standards.
Authors will learn what triggers spellchecking (or
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:14:02 +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
I've read this discussion,but i do not understand exactly
why this should be denoted in markup.i do not understand why
it is needed anyway.is the lang attribute not sufficient?
It's not sufficient because the lang attribute
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 16:26:19 +0700, Matthew Raymond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I might be persuaded to allow an author to specify whether or not to
enable spell checking in the event that the user has not specified the
setting themselves for a specific type of input field. However, if, for
Quoting Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The only time spell checking matters is when the user is the one
creating the content (not the author). It doesn't make any sense to
spell check non-editable content that the user didn't even create. If
the content is editable, then spell checking should
Le 22 juin 2006 à 12:04, Ian Hickson a écrit :
UAs should use the language of the element to determine what spelling
and grammar rules to use. (Language information can come from the
lang and xml:lang attributes, Content-Language HTTP headers, or
other sources. q.v.)
Maybe having the
Matthew Raymond wrote:
Another problem is |pattern|. Any spell checking mechanism will have
to conform to the pattern value provided, which means either a really
creative spell checking algorithm or turning spell checking off. I think
the latter is probably the best idea, but it probably
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:04:51 +0700, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All elements can have spellchecking enabled or disabled. UAs may allow
the user to set this flag, and may have defaults that vary based and
various heuristics or user preferences. Spellchecking can be enabled
on an element
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 06:26:31 +0700, Sander Tekelenburg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Authors should set the document's language information, to enable user
agents to accurately determine which dictionary to use when checking
the spelling or grammar of user input.
IMO this should should be a
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:24:28 +0700, David Hyatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the user wants spell checking on in all textareas, then it should be
on, regardless of what the page says. I don't think the page should be
allowed to override spell checking rules, since this is really a user
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:22:34 +0700, Lachlan Hunt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roughly what percentage of all use cases would you expect heuristics and
user preferences to give suboptimal results, and thus require the
author's suggestion?
IMHO we should not rely on unspecified heuristics. In
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:22:34 +0700, Lachlan Hunt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roughly what percentage of all use cases would you expect heuristics
and user preferences to give suboptimal results, and thus require the
author's suggestion?
IMHO we should not rely on
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:09:41 +0700, Lachlan Hunt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO we should not rely on unspecified heuristics. In some browsers,
they work rather well, in some they might constantly fail. Leave
heuristics for invalid pages, quirks mode etc -- or document these
heuristics.
Strongly agree. :)
dave
On Jun 23, 2006, at 10:09 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:22:34 +0700, Lachlan Hunt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roughly what percentage of all use cases would you expect
heuristics and user preferences to give suboptimal
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
Even worse: when entering text in textarea, the user actually has a
choice which language to write in. I think the user agent should
provide, besides just the control to turn spellchecking on and off, a
choice of languages.
Of course the UA can provide such
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, David Hyatt wrote:
If the user wants spell checking on in all textareas, then it should be on,
regardless of what the page says. I don't think the page should be allowed to
override spell checking rules, since this is really a user decision.
Agreed; the spec is written
If the user wants spell checking on in all textareas, then it should
be on, regardless of what the page says. I don't think the page
should be allowed to override spell checking rules, since this is
really a user decision. For example, I know how to spell, so I don't
want spell checking
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, David Hyatt wrote:
The only time spell checking matters is when the user is the one
creating the content (not the author). It doesn't make any sense to
spell check non-editable content that the user didn't even create. If
the content is editable, then spell checking
The only time spell checking matters is when the user is the one
creating the content (not the author). It doesn't make any sense to
spell check non-editable content that the user didn't even create.
If the content is editable, then spell checking should just be left
up to the preference
Ian Hickson wrote:
textarea and input elements may have a new attribute specified,
spellcheck. If specified, it must have either the value on or the
value off (exactly, case-sensitive). The on value indicates that
spellchecking is to be enabled, the off value indicates that
spellchecking is to
38 matches
Mail list logo
