- From: Edmund Lai <edmund.lai@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 07:09:05 -0700
This is suggestion for WFN, where N is a large number. Add a button for spell check of a textarea. On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:47:50 +0100, James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Ryan Johnson wrote: > > > >>3) Extensible syntax highlighting (coloring). I am aware that a ton of > >>code editors don't even do this well. The ability to load a syntax > >>definition file and have it color a block of code would do wonders for > >>making the web a more friendly place to script. > > > > > > This is hard. ;-) Would be nice though. Noted for Web Apps. > > I was having thoughts about a somewhat similar feature - the ability to > specify a input 'language' for a text-area and possibly to specify a > subset of language elements allowed. This would principally be for > situations in which the input was text supplemented by a markup language > such as (x)html, textile, bbcode or similar. Providing this information > would allow the UA to provide word-processor-like editing controls for > the textarea. Allowing the specification of a particular subset of the > language (e.g. html, 'a' elements only, 'href' and 'lang' attributes > only) would allow the UI to be further refined. Clearly one would need a > set of default language profiles to ship with the UA. A good > implementation might allow the set of profiles to be easily extended. > There would need to be a mechanism for storing and fetching the > information about the allowed subset of the language. > > From the point of view of the textarea, this would require two new > attributes - inputformat and inputprofile where inputformat is a > string/uri identifying the language being used and inputprofile is a > URI pointing at a resource describing the subset of the language that is > allowed. This is not the difficult part, however. The difficult part is > finding a suitable format for describing the allowed subset. For > XML-like languages (HTML, BBcode, etc.) DTD or some other schema format > might be appropriate (but might be too complex?). For other types of > languages like 'magic character' languages (textile, wiki formats), it's > not quite so clear what would work (one could avoid supporting these > formats in the hope that with a good enough editing environment, people > might use plain HTML but that might be a mistaken hope). > > There is some evidence that this functionality is desired - for example > the BBCode addon for Firefox [1] > > I'm not expecting anything to come of this unless someone can convince > me it's much easier to implement than it appears. > > [1] http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/more-info/bbcode > > -- > "If anybody ever tells you that you're using the language incorrectly, > just yell 'prescriptive grammarian!' at the top of your voice and all > the linguists in the building will run over and surround the guy... and > then they'll rough him up" >
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 07:09:05 UTC