On 10/30/13 4:49 AM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Le mardi 29 octobre 2013 06:24:50 UTC+1, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:23:41 -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
On 2013-10-28 07:01, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Simply ignoring diactrics won't get you very far.
Right. As an example, these four French words : cote, côte, coté, côté
.
Distinct words with distinct meanings, sure.
But when a naïve (naive? ☺) person or one without the easy ability to
enter characters with diacritics searches for "cote", I want to return
possible matches containing any of your 4 examples. It's slightly
fuzzier if they search for "coté", in which case they may mean "coté" or
they might mean be unable to figure out how to add a hat and want to
type "côté". Though I'd rather get more results, even if it has some
that only match fuzzily.
The right solution to that is to treat it no differently from other fuzzy
searches. A good search engine should be tolerant of spelling errors and
alternative spellings for any letter, not just those with diacritics.
Ideally, a good search engine would successfully match all three of
"naïve", "naive" and "niave", and it shouldn't rely on special handling
of diacritics.
------
This is a non sense. The purpose of a diacritical mark is to
make a letter a different letter. If a tool is supposed to
match an ô, there is absolutely no reason to match something
else.
jmf
jmf, Tim Chase described his use case, and it seems reasonable to me.
I'm not sure why you would describe it as nonsense.
--Ned.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
