W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2013

Re: [whatwg] inputmode attribute

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 20:54:43 +0000 (UTC)
To: Takayoshi Kochi (河内 隆仁) <kochi@google.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1306062048460.2772@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, Yoichi Osato <yoichio@google.com>, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
On Wed, 29 May 2013, Takayoshi Kochi (河~F~E ~Z~F~A) wrote:
> 
> We work on W3C IME API (http://www.w3.org/TR/ime-api/) and we got 
> comment from Microsoft people that it would be nice to have inputmode 
> attribute in conjunction with the API.
> 
> Currently the inputmode attribute is spec'ed as 
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/association-of-controls-and-forms.html#input-modalities:-the-inputmode-attribute
> 
> But the mode looks somewhat sparse. In the Microsoft's proposal, more 
> modalities are populated: 
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/raw-file/tip/proposals/IMEProposal.html#inputmode-attribute
> 
> Can we discuss the change here to get this proposal merged to the spec?

I'm happy to add more values to inputmode="" if they correspond to actual 
input modalities in real products (e.g. iOS, Windows, or Android). What 
are the values being proposed, exactly, and what modalities to they 
correspond to?


On Wed, 29 May 2013, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> 
> A couple of months ago I sent some feedback regarding inputmode [1]

I apologise for not having yet processed this feedback (I've been mostly 
focusing on the bugs these past few months; I hope to get back to e-mails 
soonish). I'll look at it momentarily.


> based on your reply [2] I assumed that you agreed that we should 
> probably differentiate inputmode and scripts.
> 
> However, I see that the IME API isn't making this difference and creates 
> a lot of inputmode values to be able to handle different scripts. Is 
> there a specific reason why or is this just in order to follow the HTML 
> specification?
> 
> [1] http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2013-February/038914.html
> [2] http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2013-February/038947.html

On Fri, 31 May 2013, Takayoshi Kochi (河~F~E ~Z~F~A) wrote:
> 
> I'd hope people from Microsoft join this discussion, but from our 
> perspective we agree that we would like to go with mode and script 
> separately.

If everyone wants them split, and that's what gets implemented, then 
that's what should be specced, too.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 20:55:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:22 UTC