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

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

From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:42:39 +0200
Message-ID: <20060611124239.7ix61v2m19uo0s0s@webmail.annevankesteren.nl>
Quoting Matthew Raymond <mattraymond at earthlink.net>:
>>> [...] 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/>
Received on Sunday, 11 June 2006 03:42:39 UTC

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