W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2010

[whatwg] Exposing spelling/grammar suggestions in

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:06:45 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikOR9VzjYh-mR77LPE85cvDY=Nm+EitBYMnva3b@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Ashley Sheridan
<ash at ashleysheridan.co.uk>wrote:

>  On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 10:40 -0800, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>
> > Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:54:04 +0100
> > From: Christoph P?per<christoph.paeper at crissov.de>
> > To: whatwg group<whatwg at lists.whatwg.org>
> > Subject: Re: [whatwg] Exposing spelling/grammar suggestions in
> > 	contentEditable
> > Message-ID:<62959690-0E26-4BBC-AB4F-F9726F24CAF9 at crissov.de>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> > Charles Pritchard:
> >> >  A method for a contentEditable section, along the lines of getSpellcheckRanges() would allow for content editors, to stylize and provide further UI controls around spell checking.
> > Methinks this belongs into CSS:<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Oct/0849.html
>
> Should the issue re-arise in the CSS groups: it seems that most of the
> vendors are against exposing system dictionary identified misspelled words.
>
> ::spelling would need to have the same level of security as a:visited --
> only foreground, background color would accept alteration. Anything
> else would expose the data being highlighted.
>
>  Erm, how would that help? It's currently very easy right now to exploit
> the a:visited thing to grab an entire history list, which I presume is what
> you're on about?
>

That is fixed or getting fixed in the new versions of most (maybe all) major
browsers.


/ Jonas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20101129/e5fba588/attachment.htm>
Received on Monday, 29 November 2010 14:06:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:28 UTC