https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
Stéphane Guillou (stragu) changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #25 from Callegar ---
I do not have any statistical data either ;-)
But from what you say, I read this (correct me if I am wrong):
- For the usage case that you expect to be most frequent, the best behavior
would not be
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #24 from Mike Kaganski ---
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #23)
To clarify: I do not oppose having some rules allowing spell checkers to
*continue* checking *parts* of such words (e.g., if they have a separator in
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #23 from Mike Kaganski ---
(In reply to Callegar from comment #22)
> @Mike Kagansky What I am trying to communicate, with a sadly negative
> outcome, is that the number of false negatives with the proposed approach
> should
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #22 from Callegar ---
@Mike Kagansky What I am trying to communicate, with a sadly negative outcome,
is that the number of false negatives with the proposed approach should be way
less than the number of false negatives
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #21 from Mike Kaganski ---
(In reply to Callegar from comment #20)
> No, really it wouldn't.
No, really it will. :D
> We are talking of words that are "mixed-language".
We are talking about *sequences of characters* that
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #20 from Callegar ---
> OTOH, skipping spell check for such cases, which do not explicitly mark words
> as excluded
> from spell check, would introduce a danger of unnoticed spelling errors,
> exactly the thing
> that
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #19 from Mike Kaganski ---
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #18)
> If so, it is a perfectly reasonable request IMO
OTOH, skipping spell check for such cases, which do not explicitly mark words
as excluded from spell
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #18 from Mike Kaganski ---
(In reply to Callegar from comment #0)
> Here "sull'" is in Italian and "International" is in English. However,
> because of the apostrophe, LibO sees "sull'International" as a single word
> and
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #17 from Ross Johnson ---
Have you looked at using the AutoText feature for this?
Advantages over dictionaries:
1) AutoText can be formatted as you require, eg, italisized.
2) Saves time and effort and typos (through
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #16 from sergio.calleg...@gmail.com ---
Again this seems to me like abusing a tool that is made for something else.
IMHO, dictionaries assigned to *all* languages are meant for stuff that is
*invariant* across *all*
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #15 from Jean-Baptiste Faure ---
A user dictionary can be assigned to all languages instead of to one in
particular.
It is very easy to define a user dictionary for multi-language words and
assigned to all languages.
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #14 from sergio.calleg...@gmail.com ---
I beg to disagree, for two reasons:
1. The first one is more of a technical one, and its practical importance is
relative. In which dictionary should such a "bilingual" composite word
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #13 from Jean-Baptiste Faure ---
(In reply to sergio.callegari from comment #12)
> That may work, but I believe that it is rather sub-optimal to have to add
> (non existing) words to a dictionary for cases where there is no
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #12 from sergio.calleg...@gmail.com ---
That may work, but I believe that it is rather sub-optimal to have to add (non
existing) words to a dictionary for cases where there is no chance that
spellchecking can be properly done.
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
Jean-Baptiste Faure changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jbfa...@libreoffice.org
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #10 from sergio.calleg...@gmail.com ---
@Mihail Balabanov, can you please expand a little?
It is unclear to me how the proposed change about not spellchecking mixed
language words could conceal typos that are now caught, or
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #9 from Mihail Balabanov ---
Marking the multi-language words as ‘do not check’ would eliminate any false
positives but also conceal typos when they do exist.
In Bulgarian, we use a hyphen when adding a plural and/or
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
BogdanB changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||buzea.bog...@libreoffice.or
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #8 from sergio.calleg...@gmail.com ---
@Mihkel Tõnnov
> you said that "quell'" alone is not an Italian word - how is it currently
> handled by spellcheck, if used before an Italian word? Would 2a as described
> above work
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #7 from Mihkel Tõnnov ---
(In reply to Mihkel Tõnnov from comment #6)
Ugh, I messed up examples in my first paragraph while moving things around
there. It should read like this:
In Estonian, foreign words should be written
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
Mihkel Tõnnov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mihh...@gmail.com
--- Comment
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
sergio.calleg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #4 from sophie ---
Does it follow the Italian typographic conventions? For example in French it's
not allowed to combine the words and foreign words have to be written in
italic.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|libreoffice-ux-advise@lists |heiko.tietze@documentfounda
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
--- Comment #2 from Ming Hua ---
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #1)
> Are there other examples of separators?
Good question, what about "nothing"? :-)
In Chinese we don't use spaces to separate words (we don't even have a clear
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
Heiko Tietze changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
Buovjaga changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard| QA:needsComment|
CC|
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131487
QA Administrators changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard|| QA:needsComment
--
You
30 matches
Mail list logo
