September 28, 2006

4:57 PM

Mr. Haughey, if you've disabled the Java spell-check feature, shouldn't you remove the “Spell Check” form button form Ask MeFi?

Just FYI. Unless spell-check still works for that area of the website. Then disregard this post. Thanks!
posted by Colloquial Collision to bugs at 4:57 PM (35 comments total)

I've been meaning to remove it, yes.

Everyone go download Firefox 2.0 RC1. It's great and has spellcheck built right in.
posted by mathowie at 5:07 PM on September 28, 2006

Java != JavaScript
posted by Rhomboid at 5:29 PM on September 28, 2006

Just make sure to grab the QuBranch theme or a GrApple because the new Firefox default looks like a pile of crap.
posted by darukaru at 5:58 PM on September 28, 2006

One person's opinion. I think it looks awesome.
posted by purephase at 6:12 PM on September 28, 2006

While your working on that Matt there's also still a spell check button on the front page posting form.
posted by Mitheral at 7:02 PM on September 28, 2006

MetaTalk: form button form
posted by rocketman at 7:37 PM on September 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Rhomboid : "Java != JavaScript"

Was the spellcheck done entirely in JavaScript? Wow. I mean, that's a lot of work for little old JavaScript.

I've always assumed MetaFilter was still running on ColdFusion and JRun.
posted by Colloquial Collision at 7:47 PM on September 28, 2006

cut the guy some slack, i mean, he's got a full time job working on some web site these days.
posted by quonsar at 8:00 PM on September 28, 2006

Do you have any idea how much work it is to dispense coke and hookers to 42,441 users? I mean, the coke is easy, but have you ever tried to divvy up a hooker into micropayments?
posted by loquacious at 8:08 PM on September 28, 2006

Everyone go download Firefox 2.0 RC1. It's great and has spellcheck built right in

Or in Safari: Edit > Spelling > Check Spelling As You Type
posted by TheDonF at 12:16 AM on September 29, 2006

There's still a spellcheck button when creating a new FPP, too. (or at least there was a couple'a days ago.)
posted by NinjaTadpole at 3:16 AM on September 29, 2006

Everyone go download Firefox 2.0 RC1.

As a production sysadmin, .0 versions give me hives, and Release Candidates are worse. Sorry, I spend enough time working around the bugs of the software I've paid for to serve as a beta tester for free software.
posted by eriko at 5:20 AM on September 29, 2006

Of course it's Java, not JavaScript. What was Rhomboid talking about?

>Everyone go download Firefox 2.0 RC1.

Or, call me crazy, how about everyone learn to spell!

I swear, if I see "verticle" or "definately" one more time... and am I really the last person on this planet who knows that "principal" means one thing and "principle" another?

Here's the thing about spelling. There are only two kinds of words. Ones you know how spell and ones you don't. The ones you don't? Look them up. Thank you.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 6:18 AM on September 29, 2006

*puts the ple back in principle*
posted by cortex at 6:21 AM on September 29, 2006

AmbroseChapel : "Or, call me crazy, how about everyone learn to spell!"

I'll definately do that.








verticle.
posted by Colloquial Collision at 6:23 AM on September 29, 2006

"I swear, if I see "verticle" or "definately" one more time... and am I really the last person on this planet who knows that "principal" means one thing and "principle" another?"

There's an awesome word filter on the SA forums that changes "rediculous" to "[NOTE: I AM TOO STUPID TO SPELL THE WORD 'RIDICULOUS' CORRECTLY]". Maybe someone should whip up a MeFi Greasemonkey script like that one that changes Wikipedia ^ links to [I HAVE NO SOUL], only for bad spelling.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 7:11 AM on September 29, 2006

eriko: "As a production sysadmin, .0 versions give me hives, and Release Candidates are worse. Sorry, I spend enough time working around the bugs of the software I've paid for to serve as a beta tester for free software."

The more people who think that way, the more bugs will slip through release candidates and point-oh versions into your "safe" supposedly bug-free releases..
posted by Plutor at 7:14 AM on September 29, 2006

eriko, RC1 of Firefox 2.0 is incredibly stable (at least for me). I had a few issues with some of the earlier betas, but RC1 has been rock-solid.

Colour me impressed.
posted by purephase at 7:33 AM on September 29, 2006

Oh, and everyone should definately download it.
posted by purephase at 7:34 AM on September 29, 2006

RC1 is working fine for me and seems much faster than 1.5. So yea, color me impressed too.
posted by octothorpe at 7:46 AM on September 29, 2006

AmbroseChapel, marry me.
posted by dame at 8:40 AM on September 29, 2006

It will be a butiful wedding.
posted by cortex at 8:49 AM on September 29, 2006

You are a wicked, wicked man cortex. Not even laundryroom swapmeet can make up for that.
posted by dame at 9:11 AM on September 29, 2006

Would you like to test out FFX 2.0 without nuking your existing installation? Now you can.
posted by boo_radley at 9:48 AM on September 29, 2006

Would you like to test out FFX 2.0 without nuking your existing installation? Now you can.

IF you run windows.
posted by quonsar at 10:25 AM on September 29, 2006

AND YOU WILL BE A BUTIFUL BRIDE!

I'll keep an eye out for choice wedding presents in the laundry room. Fancy a blender with no pitcher?
posted by cortex at 10:46 AM on September 29, 2006

RC1 of Firefox 2.0 is incredibly stable

The only downside being that most of your extensions will crap out upon upgrade.

For all those not wanting to test RC1, there's always the Spellbound Development extension.
posted by camcgee at 10:57 AM on September 29, 2006

No blender for me, sir. But if you get any more hoodies . . .
posted by dame at 11:13 AM on September 29, 2006

"have you ever tried to divvy up a hooker into micropayments?"

Yes, and the poor bastard I pinned the rap on is still doing time.

P.S., thanks to scarabic for the advice.
posted by Eideteker at 3:49 PM on September 29, 2006

Of course it's Java, not JavaScript. What was Rhomboid talking about?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 6:18 AM PST on September 29

IIRC, Rhomboid's right; you're wrong. Spellcheck was done with javascript.
posted by timeistight at 5:13 PM on September 29, 2006

As I used the phrase "of course" and you used the phrase "IIRC", it looks like I'm more certain than you are.

Matt please confirm that it was Java?

dame, sorry, already married and living in a state where polygamy is illegal.

>There's an awesome word filter on the SA forums that changes "rediculous" to "[NOTE: I AM TOO STUPID TO SPELL THE WORD 'RIDICULOUS' CORRECTLY]".

That is officially the best thing I have learned this month.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 3:30 AM on September 30, 2006

As I used the phrase "of course" and you used the phrase "IIRC", it looks like I'm more certain than you are.

You're certainly wrong: it ain't Java. Do a search in MetaTalk for "spell check javascript" and you'll find comments from Matt confirming that.

Not that it matters much now that it's broken.
posted by timeistight at 9:25 AM on October 2, 2006

>You're certainly wrong: it ain't Java. Do a search in MetaTalk for "spell check javascript" and you'll find comments from Matt confirming that.

Which, for some reason, you're unable to link to? It used Javascript to open a little popup window but I'm pretty much 100% certain that it didn't use JavaScript to do the spell-checking.

I'm sorry, but, do you actually know anything about Java, or JavaScript? Would you care to outline how you'd write a spell-checker in JavaScript for the class? Start by telling us how you'd store the dictionary.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 10:19 PM on October 2, 2006

You know, you're probably right: JavaScript to "talk to the comment box"; Java to do the checking. I had thought the actual checking was being done by an off-site web service, but I must have hallucinated that.

Mea maxima culpa, okay? Let's not fight...
posted by timeistight at 3:11 PM on October 3, 2006

Aw, come on! Fight! Fight! Fight!
posted by cortex at 4:34 PM on October 3, 2006