W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2013

Re: [whatwg] inputmode attribute

From: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 16:12:55 +0100
Message-ID: <51A61AF7.50708@lamouri.fr>
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

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