389983 - Enable spellchecking in the summary field

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Bugzilla :: Creating/Changing Bugs, defect)

Description

[Shawn Wilsher :sdwilsh]

It'd be really nice to have spellchecking enabled by default in the summary field for filing new bugs.

Comment 1

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

Bugzilla doesn't do spellchecking, that's a browser feature.

Comment 2

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

This is a request for Bugzilla to enable spell checking in it's summary field. See http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Controlling_spell_checking_in_HTML_forms .

Comment 3

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

(This just requires adding spellcheck="true" to the <input>).

Comment 4

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

and that's specified where in the HTML standard? ;)

But I'd call this a Bugzilla thing rather than b.m.o specific then.

Comment 5

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

I suspect it was a request for b.m.o specifically, because getting this into a  Bugzilla release and then getting that release running on b.m.o takes too long, whereas adding an attribute on the form input for b.m.o's template is simple.

It's not in the HTML specification, but I don't see why that matters.

Comment 6

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

There's no reason Bugzilla itself shouldn't also do it, of course - but getting this on b.m.o shouldn't necessarily need to wait on the long process of patching Bugzilla and then upgrading b.m.o.

Comment 7

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

Attachment: patch - v1

Set spellcheck="true", as per http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Controlling_spell_checking_in_HTML_forms so that the summary field is spell checked.

Comment 8

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

Attachment: patch - v2

Oops, I forgot to add spellcheck="true" to the bug create templates.

Comment 9

[Frédéric Buclin]

(In reply to comment #5)
> It's not in the HTML specification, but I don't see why that matters.

That matters because we want Bugzilla templates to be valid HTML4 Transitional pages.

Comment 10

[Shawn Wilsher :sdwilsh]

I guess it's a bmo bug then...

Comment 11

[Mike Connor [:mconnor]]

I think this would be a win for Bugzilla users, but we should absolutely do it downstream if upstream isn't willing to take the patch.

Comment 12

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > It's not in the HTML specification, but I don't see why that matters.
> 
> That matters because we want Bugzilla templates to be valid HTML4 Transitional
> pages.

Why? I've heard Bugzilla developers use this argument to deny patches in the past, but I really can't see why having your patches validate to an obsolete and incomplete standard is beneficial to you or your users.

Comment 13

[Frédéric Buclin]

HTML 4 is not obsolete, and this forces us to use something which all browsers (should) understand. AFAIK, spellcheck="true" won't work on IE6/7. What would you say if a IE lover started submitting patches to add IE specific attributes which are neither in the specs not understandable by Firefox?

Comment 14

[Frédéric Buclin]

Moreover, I'm not sure that NsISomeFunction is in the dictionary, nor that everybody uses the same dictionaries as we may all have different locales (en, fr, de, it, ...).

Comment 15

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

(In reply to comment #13)
> HTML 4 is not obsolete, and this forces us to use something which all browsers
> (should) understand. AFAIK, spellcheck="true" won't work on IE6/7.

That's right, it won't, because IE doesn't have built-in spell check. I don't see why that is a problem - adding it won't do any *harm* to IE (or any other browser, as far as I know).

> What would you say if a IE lover started submitting patches to add IE specific
> attributes which are neither in the specs not understandable by Firefox?

I would say that you should consider the request pragmatically and accept the patch if the cost/benefit ratio is low enough.

I think the cost/benefit ratio in this case specifically is close to 0.

Comment 16

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

I was going to just say go for it if it was in the current draft for HTML5, but it's not (I just checked).  On the other hand, this has a high usability win on the browsers that do support it, and those that don't *should* ignore it.  We can do this on b.m.o regardless, but I'm sitting on the fence for doing it upstream in Bugzilla (but heavily leaning towards "go ahead and do it").

Comment 17

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

Considering I wrote the patch for upstream and the fact that it is awaiting review from a Bugzilla developer, I'm moving this back to the Bugzilla product.

Comment 18

[Frédéric Buclin]

(In reply to comment #17)
> I'm moving this back to the Bugzilla product.

You could try Tech Evangelism. :)

Comment 19

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

(In reply to comment #9)
> That matters because we want Bugzilla templates to be valid HTML4 Transitional
> pages.

If Bugzilla developers really cared about valid HTML4 Transitional, they would have fixed bug 364096 a while ago. ;)

Comment 20

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

Comment on attachment 274327 [details] [diff] [review]
patch - v2

Trying LpSolit as a reviewer since bkor isn't around.

Comment 21

[Frédéric Buclin]

Comment on attachment 274327 [details] [diff] [review]
patch - v2

justdave is the Bugzilla module owner. I will let him take his responsibilities.

Comment 22

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

Comment on attachment 274327 [details] [diff] [review]
patch - v2

r=justdave

Patch still applies to the trunk cleanly believe it or not.

Comment 23

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

reed: this was yours, do you have commit access for webtools?

Comment 24

[Frédéric Buclin]

For 3.2 only.

Comment 25

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

Checking in template/en/default/bug/edit.html.tmpl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/bug/edit.html.tmpl,v  <--  edit.html.tmpl
new revision: 1.108; previous revision: 1.107
done
Checking in template/en/default/bug/create/create-guided.html.tmpl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/bug/create/create-guided.html.tmpl,v  <--  create-guided.html.tmpl
new revision: 1.41; previous revision: 1.40
done
Checking in template/en/default/bug/create/create.html.tmpl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/bug/create/create.html.tmpl,v  <--  create.html.tmpl
new revision: 1.81; previous revision: 1.80
done

Comment 26

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

(In reply to comment #23)
> reed: this was yours, do you have commit access for webtools?

Yes, I have commit access for all of /cvsroot. :)

Comment 27

[Frédéric Buclin]

Comment on attachment 274327 [details] [diff] [review]
patch - v2

>Index: template/en/default/bug/edit.html.tmpl

>+              [% " spellcheck=\"$spellcheck\"" IF spellcheck %]>

filterexceptions.pl doesn't have this entry, making Tinderboxes to burn.

Comment 28

[Frédéric Buclin]

Reopening. All boxes are burning.

Comment 29

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

Attachment: add spellcheck to filterexceptions.pl - v1

How's this?

Comment 30

[Frédéric Buclin]

Comment on attachment 291117 [details] [diff] [review]
add spellcheck to filterexceptions.pl - v1

r/a=LpSolit

Comment 31

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

Thanks for the quick review.

Checking in template/en/default/filterexceptions.pl;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/en/default/filterexceptions.pl,v  <--  filterexceptions.pl
new revision: 1.110; previous revision: 1.109
done