I've posted the notice on the editor's draft as suggested below. If there is help to continue to advance the direction of this spec, I'd love to see it continue to evolve.
Note, that our Chinese Bing home page (http://www.bing.com/?mkt=zh-CN) employs the use of a version of this API (prefixed, in IE11 & Edge), but the API only lights up when you use built-in Microsoft IMEs (not 3rd party IMEs at the moment :( ). -----Original Message----- From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 3:42 AM To: Travis Leithead; Ryosuke Niwa Cc: public-webapps Subject: Re: [ime-api] [blink-dev] Removing IME API code from Blink On 5/28/15 2:04 PM, Travis Leithead wrote: > That sounds good to me (working the UI challenges for IME together with > grammar/spell checking). Is this a direction the current IME spec could > take--possibly with a big refactor to consider dropping the ClientRect > exposure--or would it be better to publish as Note the current approach and > start a new spec? > > Perhaps it doesn't really matter as the above is a process question, and what > is really needed is someone to start suggesting some concrete proposals > here--I've been pretty much ignoring this spec for the past year, and I don't > see that changing in the near future. It's still something I'd like to see > moved forward, I just don't believe I have the time to move it substantially > forward at the present moment :) Given this, it seems like the SoTD section should include some type of large-ish warning/note that include text along the lines of `no one is actively working on this spec nor its implementation` + `help wanted`. Also, if the spec's [Issues] and [Bugs] haven't properly captured the ClientRect exposure issue, perhaps one should be created (and/or the spec updated to reflect this). On the other hand, if you propose to formally stop work on the spec "as it is" now, then it would be appropriate to have a CfC to publish a WG Note (and if/when there is a firm commitment to do some type of followup work, a new spec can be created). WDYT? -Thanks, ArtB [Issues] https://github.com/w3c/ime-api/issues [Bugs] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?component=IME%20API&list_id=57282&product=WebAppsWG&resolution=--- > -----Original Message----- > From: Ryosuke Niwa [mailto:rn...@apple.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 7:00 PM > To: Travis Leithead > Cc: Arthur Barstow; public-webapps > Subject: Re: [ime-api] [blink-dev] Removing IME API code from Blink > > >> On May 27, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Travis Leithead >> <travis.leith...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >> I believed the use-cases for avoiding UI clashes between site-driven >> auto-complete lists and IME auto-complete boxes is still a valid use case, >> and I think the spec is still valid to try to push to recommendation. >> However, I'd also like to follow up on usage of the ms- prefixed API so that >> I can get an idea of what its real usage is. > I agree avoiding UI clashes between auto-completions of IME and web page is a > great use case but I'm not convinced that exposing ClientRect for IME is the > right API as many Web developers aren't even aware of UI challenges IME > imposes. For example, a similar UI challenge emerges when dealing with > auto-corrections in grammar/spell checking features as well. It would be > ideal if IME and spell/grammar corrections are handled in a similar manner so > that Web apps supporting either feature will "just work" with both features. > > - R. Niwa >
