----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Cavanaugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Gary Setter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [aspell-devel] Re: ASpell
> Goodness I looked at this again and instead of making it simpler I made it > more complicated! > > As I thought about it to handle multiple languages properly you need a > switch from single language mode to multiple. "Multiple Simple" to drop the > syntactic features and just do basic spell checking and lookups, "Multiple > Primary" gives full consideration to the chosen primary language while > operating in the simple mode for the second, and "Multiple Separate" which > gives the full results for both and assumes it is being called from separate > pages or applications. To make your services smarter you will have to force > the calling application to be smarter. > > If the services are called for multiple languages and do not send the proper > requests ASpell goes automatically into its "Simple Mode" or compatibility > mode. If the calling app is multi language aware it can then make full use > of ASpell's features. > > Anyways I will shut up now and stay on the list in "listening mode". :) <snip> ---- Reply ---- Hi, To rephrase, I believe that national language is only one way of classifying vocabulary. Within a national language, there are specialized vocabularies for professions, degree of informality, era and so on. One document may have a mix of vocabularies. It is useful to have a large base words, including multiple national languages. However, the larger the base of words, the greater the chance of missing a misspelled word. Similarly, if the word base is huge and all words are classified as equally correct, the lists of suggestions is going to be large and have a low signal to noise ratio. Classifying the word lists of correctly spelled words not just by national language but by specialty seem valuable to me. As has been suggested, aspell can then give more then just a binary correct/incorrect response. It can give a correct/warning/error response. In my opinion, when the application connects with the aspell service it should be able to ask for as broad or a narrow a list of languages and vocabularies as it needs. But I don't see the need for "Simple" vs. "Separate". If the application does not want the complexity of a tristate response, treat the warnings as errors or as correct does it matter to the service? Thank you for listening! Gary _______________________________________________ Aspell-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/aspell-devel
