Hi all, > For the automatic checking in the background: > I have noticed that the Spanish grammar checker for MSWord tries to > check everytime the user types a character that is a "candidate" for > ending a sentence (for example, a dot). If the user goes on typing on > the same paragraph, eventualy some fragments are checked again (it seems > like there are "hard" ends, that can't be changed by the following text, > and "soft" ends, that depend on the text that follows (for example, an > abbreviation can appear at the end of the sentence or in the middle)). I > think that we should check the grammar as soon as possible, not when all > the paragraph has been typed.
The reasonable choice would probably be to check again when a word was modified/added deleted. Similar things already happen for spell checking when a word gets modified. >> 5. OpenOffice should be able to replace the wrong sentences. > > The checker should preserve formating, footnotes, etc. Ideally these > things should not be passed to the checker (the footnotes and the like > could be passed when the paragraph or the sentence that includes them > has been checked, for example), but if the user chooses to accept a > suggestion, the format (i.e. italics), the footnotes, etc. should remain > in the original places. Perhaps we could pass "markers" embedded in the > paragraph text and then return them in the corrected text to "align" the > original and the checked sentences. We may get a comment from Oliver on this next week when he is back. Because he already was required to implement such issues for the sentence based spell checking dialog. >> 6. I think we should create an unified User Interface, for any >> grammar checker use it. > > I think that this user interface should be optional. A grammar checker > is a candidate for great complexity and we should not be constrained to > a predefined UI. For example, the grammar checker I'm developing > (http://www.einescat.org) uses its own UI, and can be eventually used > from clients other than OOo. For me (in my particular case) it would be > better not being bound to any user interface. For a single grammar checker being used at all I would agree on the instant. But considering an environment where numerous grammar checker will be installed I think having a larger number of different UI's is not a good idea. Such an environment easily exist for Universities. Consider them to install all grammar checkers available to support all their students from different countries. >> 7. Automatic checking should run in background and marking the wrong >> sentences with a wavy line. It could be enabled and disabled, like >> Spell Checker. > > We should consider different colors for different usages (grammar > mistakes, style recommendations, etc.). Several types of lines to mark text for various reasons sounds Ok to me. (See one of my other posts). I like to mention though that last year most people pointed out that styles should not be handled by a grammar checker at all. I found the idea of checking and correcting styles quite interesting. But maybe it should be a component of it's own. This probably just depends if sth like that is supported by grammar checkers. I myself have not yet seen a grammar checker that cared about styles. Just to make sure what I meant when talking about styles: I was referring to text attributes like bold, italic, font size or color etc. Maybe you are referring to the style of language being used e.g: - ancient - technical - vulgar - official document - informal ... Regards, Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
