Am 29.11.2010 um 21:58 schrieb Charles Pritchard: > Currently, there's no way for an author to markup spelling errors in text. > A [spelling] tag would address that deficiency. > > This could be used for a number of reasons, from [sic]-style annotations, to > conveying to the user that an area is misspelled using the same visual cues > as contenteditable. > > At this point, it'd simply be a semantic element. If there's any traction, we > could certainly talk about additional attributes or another name, such as > sic: [sic]misspeld[/sic] > > Does the list need further use cases for its consideration? > > -Charles
I support this idea and I'd certainly use it. For example, I'm currently copying an old rhyme book to hypertext and would love to mark historically correct (but now incorrect) spelling, spelling intentionally done wrong for better rhyming (yes, people did this in the past) and unintentional errors from the book semantically. I think it is important to note where those errors are done intentional (by me, the publisher of the web page) in contrast to errors accidentally added by me that differ from the copied book. I'd prefer the name "sic" to "spelling", because if you have "spelling", you'd also want elements to mark intentionally incorrect grammar, wrong numbers or whole misplaced words. "Sic" serves all these purposes fine. If it is necessary to differentiate between e.g. intentionally wrong grammar and intentionally wrong spelling, attributes might be a solution. Regards Martin
