- From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:36:16 +0900
- To: Takayoshi Kochi (河内 隆仁) <kochi@google.com>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
[trimming the Cc list, assuming everybody's subscribed to whatwg@lists.whatwg.org] "Takayoshi Kochi (河内 隆仁)" <kochi@google.com>, 2013-12-09 16:18 +0900: ... > The point that Yoichi wanted to make was to extract IME-related part of > 'intputmode' spec and move out of inputmode, or at least separate the > discussion about IME-related modes and other modes, otherwise the > discussion will never go anywhere. > > How about using this bug as a starting point of the discussion (although > it's on w3c bugzilla)? > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23961 > > Ben Bucksh (cc'ed) pointed out in the bug entry that inputmode has at > least 3 aspects (script/language, data type, typing aid). There is room > for discussion whether we should split inputmode into every orthogonal > modes, but whether we split or not, we would like to separate discussion > whether each mode is good or not into these categories. As I commented in bug 23961, the value of the inputmode attribute was originally specified as taking a list of tokens, where one token is optionally the name of a script like "latin" and the rest of the tokens were optional modifiers. So you could imagine a value like inputmode="latin titlecase prediction". I'm not saying I think the use cases actually merit changing the inputmode microsyntax to be a list of tokens like that. But it might be preferable to introducing yet more attributes. --Mike -- Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 09:36:57 UTC