<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Spellchecking belongs in the browser, not on the website</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gabrito.com/post/spell-checking-belongs-in-the-browser-not-on-the-website/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gabrito.com/post/spell-checking-belongs-in-the-browser-not-on-the-website</link>
	<description>Anecdotes on Technology Leadership, Ruby, Java, Scala, Cloud Computing, Open-Source, SEO, and Design</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Aug 2010 06:23:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Blue</title>
		<link>http://gabrito.com/post/spell-checking-belongs-in-the-browser-not-on-the-website/comment-page-1#comment-65</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Blue</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:21:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gabrito.com/post/spell-checking-belongs-in-the-browser-not-on-the-website#comment-65</guid>
		<description>Many browsers on Linux have built-in spell checkers like Konqueror - very useful when you are in a hurry. Perhaps IE7 will have this feature.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many browsers on Linux have built-in spell checkers like Konqueror &#8211; very useful when you are in a hurry. Perhaps IE7 will have this feature.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Todd Huss</title>
		<link>http://gabrito.com/post/spell-checking-belongs-in-the-browser-not-on-the-website/comment-page-1#comment-59</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd Huss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:42:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gabrito.com/post/spell-checking-belongs-in-the-browser-not-on-the-website#comment-59</guid>
		<description>Dennis, I agree that the argument for remote access is compelling but I think there&#039;s a misconception that remote access and web based access are synonymous. For example there are some applications I still prefer to have on the desktop because they feel more like real applications and I can then use them remotely and disconnected such as when I&#039;m on a plane. For me they include my email, RSS reader, word processor, spreadsheet, and IDE. I manage these across multiple computers by using synchronization such as IMAP, BlogBridge, Firefox bookmark synchronizer, and Subversion (to manage my documents and source control). I think this will become less of an issue as we can easily connect over the net in more and more places. I think 5 years from now I may have a different take but we&#039;re not there yet!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dennis, I agree that the argument for remote access is compelling but I think there&#8217;s a misconception that remote access and web based access are synonymous. For example there are some applications I still prefer to have on the desktop because they feel more like real applications and I can then use them remotely and disconnected such as when I&#8217;m on a plane. For me they include my email, RSS reader, word processor, spreadsheet, and IDE. I manage these across multiple computers by using synchronization such as IMAP, BlogBridge, Firefox bookmark synchronizer, and Subversion (to manage my documents and source control). I think this will become less of an issue as we can easily connect over the net in more and more places. I think 5 years from now I may have a different take but we&#8217;re not there yet!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dennis D. McDonald</title>
		<link>http://gabrito.com/post/spell-checking-belongs-in-the-browser-not-on-the-website/comment-page-1#comment-58</link>
		<dc:creator>Dennis D. McDonald</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Feb 2006 02:41:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gabrito.com/post/spell-checking-belongs-in-the-browser-not-on-the-website#comment-58</guid>
		<description>Todd,

In light of this discussion, I thought this might interest you, a ZDNet column by Washington area colleague Don Hinchcliffe titled &quot;The future is hosted, online e-mail.&quot; It&#039;s located here:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=12

I&#039;m not sure I agree with everthing Dion says, and I still can hear the company executive saying, &quot;You want me to store my company confidential emails where?&quot; But the arguments for remote access from anywhere are pretty strong, especially for mobile professionals.

- Dennis</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Todd,</p>
<p>In light of this discussion, I thought this might interest you, a ZDNet column by Washington area colleague Don Hinchcliffe titled &#8220;The future is hosted, online e-mail.&#8221; It&#8217;s located here:</p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=12" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=12</a></p>
<p>I&#8217;m not sure I agree with everthing Dion says, and I still can hear the company executive saying, &#8220;You want me to store my company confidential emails where?&#8221; But the arguments for remote access from anywhere are pretty strong, especially for mobile professionals.</p>
<p>- Dennis</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Todd Huss</title>
		<link>http://gabrito.com/post/spell-checking-belongs-in-the-browser-not-on-the-website/comment-page-1#comment-57</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd Huss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:11:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gabrito.com/post/spell-checking-belongs-in-the-browser-not-on-the-website#comment-57</guid>
		<description>Dennis, great question and thanks for the link, very interesting read! The issue I have with the office 2.0 approach is that you&#039;re using a large number of separate applications that currently don&#039;t share data at all, such as a contact list, spellchecker exclude words, files, etc... In the long long term this can be rectified for sites that offer office 2.0 features by allowing you to select a 3rd party contacts provider, spell checking provider, file provider, etc... that knows about your preferences and credentials to access that service. However, even when that happens, I think it&#039;s unlikely that ALL websites where I would want to enter text would know how to use my spellchecking provider, so for that reason I would still argue for a spellchecker in the browser! I think office 2.0 has a long way to go before it&#039;s usable for the masses because at the moment you end up having to shuffle a whole lot of data manually between applications.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dennis, great question and thanks for the link, very interesting read! The issue I have with the office 2.0 approach is that you&#8217;re using a large number of separate applications that currently don&#8217;t share data at all, such as a contact list, spellchecker exclude words, files, etc&#8230; In the long long term this can be rectified for sites that offer office 2.0 features by allowing you to select a 3rd party contacts provider, spell checking provider, file provider, etc&#8230; that knows about your preferences and credentials to access that service. However, even when that happens, I think it&#8217;s unlikely that ALL websites where I would want to enter text would know how to use my spellchecking provider, so for that reason I would still argue for a spellchecker in the browser! I think office 2.0 has a long way to go before it&#8217;s usable for the masses because at the moment you end up having to shuffle a whole lot of data manually between applications.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dennis D. McDonald</title>
		<link>http://gabrito.com/post/spell-checking-belongs-in-the-browser-not-on-the-website/comment-page-1#comment-56</link>
		<dc:creator>Dennis D. McDonald</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:15:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gabrito.com/post/spell-checking-belongs-in-the-browser-not-on-the-website#comment-56</guid>
		<description>Todd, 

Would you still have the preference for the physical location of the spellchecker were functional requirements related to PERSONALIZATION, PERFORMANCE, and AVAILABILITY  satisfied by a remotely-maintained spellchecker? 

I ask because I have some interest in what some folks (like Ismael Ghalimi at IT Redux) are saying about &quot;Office 2.0&quot; and remotely hosted applications. 

One link where I discuss this (which inlcudes links back to Ghalimi&#039;s site) is here:

http://www.ddmcd.com/office_seriously.html

I should say that, despite my above post, I am increasingly impressed with the functionality of remotely hosted applications and their ability to incorporate varying degrees of personalization. Granted, I have been disappointed by the performance of the Yahoo! Mail Beta but I think such performance issues are temporary.

- Dennis</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Todd, </p>
<p>Would you still have the preference for the physical location of the spellchecker were functional requirements related to PERSONALIZATION, PERFORMANCE, and AVAILABILITY  satisfied by a remotely-maintained spellchecker? </p>
<p>I ask because I have some interest in what some folks (like Ismael Ghalimi at IT Redux) are saying about &#8220;Office 2.0&#8243; and remotely hosted applications. </p>
<p>One link where I discuss this (which inlcudes links back to Ghalimi&#8217;s site) is here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ddmcd.com/office_seriously.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ddmcd.com/office_seriously.html</a></p>
<p>I should say that, despite my above post, I am increasingly impressed with the functionality of remotely hosted applications and their ability to incorporate varying degrees of personalization. Granted, I have been disappointed by the performance of the Yahoo! Mail Beta but I think such performance issues are temporary.</p>
<p>- Dennis</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bobby Rockers</title>
		<link>http://gabrito.com/post/spell-checking-belongs-in-the-browser-not-on-the-website/comment-page-1#comment-52</link>
		<dc:creator>Bobby Rockers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:46:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gabrito.com/post/spell-checking-belongs-in-the-browser-not-on-the-website#comment-52</guid>
		<description>Konqueror has had integraded spell checking for a while now (KDE 3.1 I think) and I have found living without it almost impossible.   Of course, I say this typing on my wife&#039;s XP laptop... in firefox.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Konqueror has had integraded spell checking for a while now (KDE 3.1 I think) and I have found living without it almost impossible.   Of course, I say this typing on my wife&#8217;s XP laptop&#8230; in firefox.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lorelle</title>
		<link>http://gabrito.com/post/spell-checking-belongs-in-the-browser-not-on-the-website/comment-page-1#comment-51</link>
		<dc:creator>Lorelle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:47:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gabrito.com/post/spell-checking-belongs-in-the-browser-not-on-the-website#comment-51</guid>
		<description>Excellent point. And it&#039;s not just specialized words (like my name). It&#039;s also languages. Which version of English will you tolerate for spelling? Browser-integrated spell checkers are definitely a better option.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent point. And it&#8217;s not just specialized words (like my name). It&#8217;s also languages. Which version of English will you tolerate for spelling? Browser-integrated spell checkers are definitely a better option.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
