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
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 03:50:39 +0200, L. David Baron [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The values of globalCompositeOperation are very poorly defined:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#globalcompositeoperation
Some math is probably needed; prose alone seems unlikely to be
sufficient.
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
