On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Is there room for discussion of an API
there's room to discuss such things.
to expose misspelled ranges of text in contentEditable?
I'm worried about privacy risks.
Some devices have a tendency to learn passwords as
On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 11:27 +0200, timeless wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Is there room for discussion of an API
there's room to discuss such things.
to expose misspelled ranges of text in contentEditable?
I'm worried about privacy
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Ashley Sheridan
a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote:
But why would a password field ever be tied to a contentEditable section?
I did not say that html:input type=password was the source of
password data that was learned by the spell checker.
I said that a spell
Charles Pritchard:
A method for a contentEditable section, along the lines of
getSpellcheckRanges() would allow for content editors, to stylize and provide
further UI controls around spell checking.
Methinks this belongs into CSS:
On 28 Nov 2010, at 14:54, Christoph Päper wrote:
Charles Pritchard:
A method for a contentEditable section, along the lines of
getSpellcheckRanges() would allow for content editors, to stylize and
provide further UI controls around spell checking.
Methinks this belongs into CSS:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Adrian Sutton adrian.sut...@ephox.com wrote:
User's expect a rich text editor
to override the browser default context menu to provide things like
properties for images, lists, tables etc and the other stuff usually found
in a rich text editor's context menu.
On 28 Nov 2010, at 15:52, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Adrian Sutton adrian.sut...@ephox.com
wrote:
User's expect a rich text editor
to override the browser default context menu to provide things like
properties for images, lists, tables etc and the other
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Adrian Sutton adrian.sut...@ephox.com wrote:
It could, but it doesn't. Any browser that tried doing that would likely
just run into compatibility complaints and have to revert it.
Can you give an example of an incompatibility this would introduce?
--
Benjamin
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 11/26/10 11:39 PM, Simon Fraser wrote:
But CSS gradients are already requiring interpolation in premutiplied
space, right?
I think you're thinking of CSS Transitions, which we decided should run in
premultiplied.
It _may_ be worth discussing (as I am not all knowing) but I cannot see a way
that these APIs could be added without opening up a user to privacy violations.
It is somewhat irksome to me that I have raised these exact issues in the past
in the context of implementing editors in canvas and you
And now it's being brought up in the context of content editable.
My understanding of prior conversations were that contentEditable is a
reasonable method to explore input editing.
The content within an editable area is already exposed: xhr is available. I
understand that a 'custom' system
A method for triggering a system/ua spell check via execCommand would be a
small step forward. Is that something already available? Afaik, it was canned
from the early MS model.
On Nov 28, 2010, at 6:56 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
It _may_ be worth discussing (as I am not all
Charles Pritchard:
The content within an editable area is already exposed: xhr is
available.
That is data that the user has explicitly typed in, though.
I understand that a 'custom' system dictionary could expose
private data ... Just as 'suggestions' on form elements do.
Suggestions on
In thread.
On Nov 28, 2010, at 8:03 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote:
Charles Pritchard:
The content within an editable area is already exposed: xhr is
available.
That is data that the user has explicitly typed in, though.
Yes, that's what I meant to point out by the statement.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
What breach is enabled by using a limited spell check?
(What does “limited” mean?)
If script can programmaticaly get at the spell check results, then it
exposes whether particular words are in the user’s dictionary to
15 matches
Mail list logo
