Paul Huff (phuff) wrote in lj_dev,
Paul Huff
phuff
lj_dev

Web 2.0 Spell checking for LJ...

Been lurking for a while -- here's the obligatory intro: web developer, recent CS Grad. I like Thai food.
Been using livejournal for 8 months now.

So -- at the begining of the summer I checked out the source, and I've been tooling with the spell checking stuff in my somewhat limited spare time. Specifically, I've hijacked bits of pieces of Spellcheck.pm and created a bit of javascript goodness which lets the user click on the words they want to replace in their post. I keep track of the position and the offset, use event code to keep track of when things move in the textarea, yada, yada, yada, and I've convinced myself it's doable. You can do a decent spell checker without having to resort to the gmail "lock the user out of the post to perform spellchecking" paradigm.

Before I tighten it up any further, test it across different browsers and submit a proposed patch, though, I do have a couple of questions:

1. Is this even something that would be good for LJ? Do people want improved spell checking?

2. Are there particular requirements for code consistency? I.e. does it have to behave well on IE/Firefox/Konqueror/Opera/Links to be able to be accepted as good enough for Live Journal? Or does it pretty much have to work in IE 6/Firefox?

3. Since I'm not way deep into understanding all of the source code, is what I'm doing even applicable? I've inserted half the code into Spellcheck.pm, a quarter into update.bml and a quarter into a javascript include... Is that even the way things should be architected if I were to do something like this?

4. Is there anyway to do some Ajax goodness for LJ? If there is, my design is a moot point, since it's for
spellchecking based on the old "submit with the spell check button, correct errors, resubmit" model...

Thanks!
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 2 comments