- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:33:50 -0400
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > If you just give some media type it's very unclear > what the particular side effects of such a media type would be. No more unclear that the potential side effects of |class|, given the existence of microformats. > Also, > it's unclear what text/html would mean for things like syntax > highlighting that are mentioned here given that you mostly edit a > snippet of it and not a whole document. Hmm. We may need a fragment MIME type or something similar, like "x-fragment/html". I don't see what baring that has on syntax highlighting, though. The MIME type would, however, be confusing with regards to possibly triggering a WYSIWYG editing feature. My suggestion would be that <input type="text"> and <textarea> always be for text-based editing regardless of the MIME type, but this shouldn't prevent the use of type-specific macros and syntax highlighting. > 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 or you're using some really special terms not commonly > used. While the idea of supplying additional works for spell checking would be nice (especially in forums that deal with specific topics that tend to have their own vocabulary), I don't see the utility of enforcing the use of a specific language via a vocabulary list. If you really want to enforce the use of a language, I would think the |lang| attribute makes more sense. Using a list of vocabulary words would just be a pointless hack since you can't reasonably expect the UA to prevent submission based on spelling. If submission was suppressed, the first time you'd use a person's name in a text field, the submission would be blocked until you removed it.
Received on Friday, 9 June 2006 12:33:50 UTC