From cd1ba8b62077b4ebbd1f3054b7c63f668401f05d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joshua Lansford Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 11:42:49 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 01/33] docs(checks): propose highlight-in-verse options (Relates to #277, #278) --- .../highlight-in-verse-suggestion.md | 300 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 300 insertions(+) create mode 100644 docs/proposals/repeated-word-check/highlight-in-verse-suggestion.md diff --git a/docs/proposals/repeated-word-check/highlight-in-verse-suggestion.md b/docs/proposals/repeated-word-check/highlight-in-verse-suggestion.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..cea6f941 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/proposals/repeated-word-check/highlight-in-verse-suggestion.md @@ -0,0 +1,300 @@ +# Highlight Repeated Words in Verse Text — Design Options & Recommendation + +**Status:** Proposal / decision-requested. Docs-only. No implementation yet. +**Type:** Follow-on to the Repeated Word Check UI (cards +[fluent-web#277](https://github.com/eten-tech-foundation/fluent-web/issues/277) / +[fluent-web#278](https://github.com/eten-tech-foundation/fluent-web/issues/278)), which +shipped the **Checks tab + panel** +([PR #320](https://github.com/eten-tech-foundation/fluent-web/pull/320), +[fluent-api #203](https://github.com/eten-tech-foundation/fluent-api/pull/203)). +**Relates to #277, #278.** The tab/panel design this layers on is +[`checks-ui-integration-suggestion.md`](checks-ui-integration-suggestion.md) (decisions +**W1–W12**). + +> **Why this is a proposal PR and not just an implementation PR.** The highlight-in-verse work +> was agreed to in the #305 review, and it _looked_ like a small presentational add-on. On +> close inspection of the actual drafting editor it is **not** small: it forces a real decision +> about how editable verse text is rendered. That decision is bigger than one feature and will +> outlive it, so the team should weigh in **before** implementation rather than have an +> architecture picked unilaterally on an experimental branch. + +--- + +## 0. The original request (what Joel/Ulf asked for) + +During the Repeated Word Check proposal review (PR #305), **joelthe1 (Joel) and Ulf** asked +that, in addition to _listing_ repeated-word findings in the Checks panel, the repeated words +be **visually marked in the verse text itself** — an underline or color on the offending words +where they appear, so the translator sees the problem in place, not only in a side list. + +It was agreed to, and **deliberately carved out as a separate follow-on PR** so the tab/panel +(#277/#278) could land first without being blocked on verse-rendering changes. This document is +that follow-on, brought forward for a design decision. + +The concrete visual target discussed on the product side of this thread: **the only visible +change should be that the flagged (active) repeated words turn red** — no new chrome, no layout +shift, the editing experience otherwise identical. + +--- + +## 1. TL;DR / recommendation + +- Coloring words _inside the box the translator is typing into_ is the hard part. Today that + box is a **plain `