Quoting Matthew Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[...] I don't see what baring that has on syntax
highlighting, though.
Highlighting omissions or errors for example...
Do you have an example of this? What would such highlighting look
like for text editing? I'm not sure I see the use case here.
A "wave" underline style or some other indication that various
required parts for an HTML document are missing. Or any other type of
document where you actually want to enter a fragment.
[...]
I was interpreting this as meaning that the UA doesn't support the
language the server expects the input to be in. Even if you just meant a
dictionary of words for the UA to use in case it lacked specific
language support, I don't see the point, since the UA will likely
support whatever languages the end user can read and write.
If, however, we're really just talking about adding words to the UA
dictionary temporarily and for a specific site, couldn't we just do that
with <meta> using the same format as we do with keywords?
| <meta name="vocabulary" lang="en-us"
| content="HTML5, WHATWG, WF2, WA1, WD1, CSS3-UI, TARDIS, ZPM, DHD">
That seems a bit limited. For larger vocabularies you want those files
to be cached, at some point you might want to provide other options as
well like synonyms etc., but perhaps I'm making this too complicated.
Are there actually situations where different controls would need
different vocabulary?!?
Sure, multilingual sites.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
