I don't think you will "find something better", but you probably could build something better.
Google's API would be nice to use, but each server would need a license and then be restricted to 1000 checks per day. I haven't looked at it much - is that 1000 blocks of words, or 1000 words? On 4/17/06, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 on ditching it. we can definitely find something better. > > -- Allen > > > Lance Lavandowska wrote: > > Kill the jazzy spell-checker. I've never been terribly happy with it > > myself, and I integrated it. I had a horrible time trying to build an > > interface without relying on javascript (something I am loath to do), > > and I never could figure out how to get it to ignore html tags. > > > > Lance > > > > On 4/17/06, Matt Raible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> While I've used it a couple times, using Google or OS X's dictionary > >> is usually a lot faster. I'd love to use a spell checker like GMail > >> or Zimbra have - those are pretty slick. > >> > >> Matt > >> > >> On 4/17/06, Dave Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> When implementing entry summary/content, I left the spell-checker in > >>> place, but only for entry text/content as before. I didn't do the > >>> extra work to enable spell-checking of entry summary. I must admit. > >>> I've never been really happy with the spell-checker and I wonder: > >>> > >>> Does anybody actually use the Roller spell-checker? > >>> > >>> There are some problems with it: > >>> - The dictionary is tiny > >>> - The Jazzy component is LGPL licensed > >>> - The user interface is unpleasant > >>> - All HTML elements are marked as misspellings > >>> > >>> Personally, I'd like to drop it entirely and (at an unspecified > >>> future time) seek an alternative. > >>> > >>> Any thoughts on the spell checker? > >>> Any suggestions for an alternative? > >>> > >>> - Dave > >>> > >>> >
