Hi all, and Thomas :)
I guess nobody else comments, as these things are highly technical, but
they're of interest to the list. So let me continue our exchange :)
[snip]
If want you meant here was chaining of grammar checkers than that
probably will never happen. Currently there is only one per language
allowed.
No, I meant chaining spell-checkers. So you don't have to argue against
my proposal - there was none :)
[snip]
Thus the problems at hand and to be discussed are:
a) should we give up on chained spell checkers even though there are
good uses for them? The simple fact that vanilla OOo has only one spell
checker does not mean there aren't other spell checkers around that
already make use of that chaining... Or that someone would like to make
use of it in the future.
The easiest solution would be to define that a proofreader that has
isSpellChecker() should be chained as all checkers are.
Nope.
All other spell checkers already have the limitation that they are word
based.
OK, I see your point.
[snip]
My preference would be to have an overall logic that can be implemented
in the gciterator since it would prevent extra burden from the
proofreader implementation.
+1
[snip]
The spelling errors found by a proofreader need to reported (and taken
care of by the user) first. The reason for this is that grammar checking
requires the proofreader to properly identify/tokenize each word, and
usually that can't be done if there are spelling errors. Thus the
quality of proofreading depends on the spelling errors being resolved first.
In which order the spelling errors from different sources are displayed
does not matter much. But probably they should be sorted by their
occurrence in the sentence.
Agreed.
[snip]
I also don't expect any proofreader to implement a
'this-is-100%-correct' check function. It was probably just a useless
thought of mine, since if the spell checker can not provide some
detailed information about the type of error found, then the only choice
for overruling the spell checker results in this case would be for the
proofreader to discard all of them. Thus essentially saying: if the
proofreader returns spelling errors as well, then don't use word-only
spell checkers at all. Thus lets just forget about this thought of mine,
since providing any additional information from the word-only spell
checker will probably need a complete new dictionary implementation to
provide that kind of information.
Hm, the grammar checker can implement some kind of context checks, or
statistical processing that would mark some words as correct. I think,
however, that this kind of feature would be quite cumbersome - and it
can be implemented more easily by simply keeping spellcheckers
word-based and let them accept all possible words disregarding the
context. Then grammar checkers can highlight errors that depend on the
context.
[...]
Of course, this presupposes that developers of proofreaders are in touch
with developers of spellchecker dictionaries so that dictionaries would
be properly prepared.
Why would that be the case?
You would need to talk to dictionary maintainers to keep Burkino and
Fasa as separate entries. Some of them don't want that, and they want
hunspell to implement context-sensitive checks. But I think the job
should be for a grammar checker to make context-sensitive checking. But
most dictionaries are word-based, and they accept both Sri and Lanka.
[...]
Ps. BTW, I've heard that the comment being visible only after clicking
"Explain" is definitely less usable than the previous dialog box that we
had in LanguageTool. Users I talked to prefer to have the explanation
displayed without clicking. I find this intuitive as well. Maybe we
should ask people from the UX project to comment on this?
Sure you can.
The last time I asked I was told that the dialog is already cramped but
the size of the dialog should not increase also. Thus nothing was done
to display the text from the 'Explain' button in a more directly visible
way.
I'd be quite happy without dialog branding, which is nice but huge and
pretty much useless, and have explanation otherwise, and branding
limited to an icon. But I suppose that's not what all third-party
proofreader makers want.
Regards
Marcin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lingucomponent.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lingucomponent.openoffice.org
