W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2006

[whatwg] <input type="text" accept="">

From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 02:04:47 -0400
Message-ID: <448BB27F.4040005@earthlink.net>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> [...] 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.

>> [...] I don't see the utility of enforcing the
>> use of a specific language via a vocabulary list.
> 
> It's not about enforcing or preventing submission at all. It's about  
> aiding users. As far as I understand that's what the inline spell  
> checking is for.

   I think this is a misunderstanding as to what you meant by "accept
input". Let me requote:

> For spell checking you might want to provide an external dictionary
> file, because you think the UA might not support the language you
> accept input in [...]

   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">

   Are there actually situations where different controls would need
different vocabulary?!?
Received on Saturday, 10 June 2006 23:04:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:27 UTC