- From: Sander Tekelenburg <tekelenb@euronet.nl>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:53:08 +0200
At 22:36 +0200 UTC, on 2006-06-09, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > Quoting Matthew Raymond <mattraymond at earthlink.net>: [...] >> [...] 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 do see the use for allowing authors to indicate what language submitted content should be in, so that a user-agent can offer spell-/syntax checking if the user wants to. But I don't see at all why you would want to allow authors to flat out state that a spellchecker should be on or off. Just like authors cannot know what font size is best for a user they cannot know whether a spellchecker is useful or a nuisance. (That aside, you can't rely on user-side validation anyway. You need to do that server-side, after the data has been submitted. Thus by allowing authors to state that a spellchecker must be on, you could end up in a stupid 'loop' when the spellchecker guides the user to do one thing, and the server wants another thing.) -- Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>
Received on Thursday, 15 June 2006 07:53:08 UTC