[whatwg] Exposing spelling/grammar suggestions in contentEditable
chuck at jumis.com
Thu Dec 2 16:07:52 PST 2010
On 12/2/2010 4:00 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Charles Pritchard<chuck at jumis.com> wrote:
>> I can tell you, that blocking the issue does have real usability costs:
> I don't know if everyone here actually agrees with that. Why can't
> you rely on the browser's built-in spell-checking? What are you
> trying to do here? What, in other words, is the actual use-case? I
> don't actually see you stating one in the thread (although maybe I'm
> just missing it). If there's no good use-case presented, then even
> without security problems, no one is likely to spec or implement the
The use case is highlighting a misspelled range, which is currently left
up to the browser,
as well as warning the user that there are misspelled ranges.
I'm resistant to heading into another use case debate here.
The red squigly [sic] lines current provided by proprietary IMEs do not
cater many uses:
They're meant to be generic, and they are. High contrast, large font,
and screen reading cases
all come up here.
If we can get standard behavior and naming out of it, and some
implementers want to return
an empty range list when it's called, that's fine with me.
More information about the whatwg