Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex2002ans
Yes, but many times it's easier to spellcheck in the purely text/visual level, minus all the code cruft.
Especially when you're working with things like:
- tables
- millions of <span>s (think InDesign code)
- ugly code (think <span style="font-weight:bold;font-style:italic;color:red;">word</span>)
- [...]
|
↑ ↑ ↑ ✔
And context matters. Misspelt words are often acceptable in dialogue, but not in narrative. In a biography one would normally avoid contractions, except in quotes, whereas they may be acceptable in a novel's narrative.
Whilst you can
see the text in codeview, you can't
read the text in codeview.
Aside: yesterday, I picked up an error in an article destined for a prestigious literary journal that I'd been asked to proofread. The article had a legal thread running though it. In one place the word 'feat' was used, but it hardly made sense; what special thing did someone do - nothing by no-one as far as I could see. Initially my mind went to 'feet', as in a matter being on-foot (in progress), but that made no sense either. Then the penny dropped, it was a mistyped 'fear', and that made a lot of sense.
My point being, I probably wouldn't have seen the error if I was looking at the text embedded in code, I would have been distracted by an ugly <span blah-de-blah> or some such. Psst - I was reading ink on paper armed with a purple Sharpie.
BR