To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=60698
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Feb 2 06:47:39 -0800 2006 ------- Hi tl: > - The magic header lines removed in the patch are to distinguish between So - if you read the patch carefully, you'll notice that this shouldn't affect backwards compatibility at all. Yes I move some code around, so a quick glance looks like it breaks stuff - but it does not. ie. this is an incremental change :-) > - Also if applying a modified version of the patch right now would mean > that we need to take care of another new file format for those files. Take care ? as in maintain ? sure - of course the only really controversial bit in here is the format used for re-writing the files in :-) ideally we'd use the same format we loaded them in rather than silently upgrading them; that would prolly be a better move. > Thus it seems sth like this should better be done for a major release like > OOo 3.0 when proper migration tools would be required anyway. > (Migration tools are not available in minor releases) ie. no migration tools necessary - this just adds support for a cleaner format. > - The hunspell dictionary format is easily readable and editable > - If user-dictionaries use the same format it will be easy to send those > to the maintainer of the main dictionary to incorporate them. > A bonus that would be very handy! Sounds sensible to me. Of course - getting this data into hunspell where it can be interpreted sensibly is more difficult. Also - I'd quite like to see this 1st cut go up-stream. What I suggest is we leave enough syntactic room to compatibly add this stuff later; ie. break on '/' and ignore after that etc. ? > This probably requires to beef up the OOo dictionary format a bit beacause And a huge amount of work which I personally am not that interested in. This was a quick hack to make an ugly file format less ugly quickly, while not really changing what it does in some structural way - so as to let us manage user-dicts sensibly. > But I don't know how far Kevin got with this, not even if he had > started with this. Kevin seems inactive these days. > TL->all: What do you think about the above? > Would it be possible? And is it something we like to go for? My desire is to shrink my outstanding patch set; so can we not conflate some nice feature / wish-list stuff with the simple format re-work :-) of course, now people can see the format no doubt they'll want that too but ... Either way - thanks for the summary of potential places to hack here :-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
