Le 16 août 07 à 16:49, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Why "senseless"? Because semantically speaking, spellcheck deals with
words, not characters.
It is always a bit more complicated that that. For example, a word
ending with numbers will be checked without the trailing numbers.
Ok, I see. This wouldn't be a "true" word however (I mean in
carbon-14, only "carbon" is a word). What I wanted to say is that the
spellchecking perspective characters, taken alone, don't have to
carry any related information; they're only relevant when considered
along with their neighborhood.
In my vision, a charstyle is a more abstract entity than a font. A
font is only appearance, whereas a charstyle should have some
semantics too. IMO the same font can be used for very different
purposes, whereas a charstyle has a given use. I see this difference
as analogous to the one between '\textit' (font) and '\emph'
(semantics).
I definitely agree. I was more talking about the implementation of
charstyles. I think it is not right yet.
Ok.
Mael.
