- From: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 16:12:55 +0100
- To: "Takayoshi Kochi (河内 隆仁)" <kochi@google.com>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, Yoichi Osato <yoichio@google.com>, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
On 29/05/13 11:12, Takayoshi Kochi (河内 隆仁) wrote: > Hi WHATWG, > > We work on W3C IME API (http://www.w3.org/TR/ime-api/) and we got comment > from > Microsoft people that it would be nice to have inputmode attribute in > conjunction with the API. > > Currently the inputmode attribute is spec'ed as > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/association-of-controls-and-forms.html#input-modalities:-the-inputmode-attribute > > But the mode looks somewhat sparse. > In the Microsoft's proposal, more modalities are populated: > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/raw-file/tip/proposals/IMEProposal.html#inputmode-attribute > > Can we discuss the change here to get this proposal merged to the spec? Hi, A couple of months ago I sent some feedback regarding inputmode [1] and based on your reply [2] I assumed that you agreed that we should probably differentiate inputmode and scripts. However, I see that the IME API isn't making this difference and creates a lot of inputmode values to be able to handle different scripts. Is there a specific reason why or is this just in order to follow the HTML specification? [1] http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2013-February/038914.html [2] http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2013-February/038947.html Thanks, -- Mounir
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2013 15:13:32 UTC