Am 30.11.2010 um 10:46 schrieb Martin Janecke: > 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
Above I only considered intentionally misspelled words to be wrapped into a "sic" element. For other uses such as an application highlighting a misspelled word to the user as a hint where she/he might want to correct something, the right choice would be the "mark" element, I think: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/text-level-semantics.html#the-mark-element Regards Martin
