[whatwg] <input type="text" accept="">
tekelenb at euronet.nl
Thu Jun 15 07:53:08 PDT 2006
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
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>
More information about the whatwg