> [Original Message]
> From: H.S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <users@openoffice.org>
> Date: 10/4/2008 8:43:57 PM
> Subject: [users] Re: OOo for technical writing: observations from
writing experiments
>
> Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > Go to community.languagetool.org
> >
> > It seems that you can help with rule development. That said, no language
> > checker will likely flag every transgression every time. Even if it did
> > manage to do so, you would be very unhappy with the results.
>
>
> That I understand. I am also quite confident that the tools is being
> improved in the new OOo version. I am going to test that when it comes
> out. But you are right, no grammar tools is going to be perfect. But as
> I noted in one my past posts, no sane writer expects that. The tools is
> used only to flag some common mistakes. That is what it is useful for,
> not to correct grammar perfectly. If a tools doesn't even do that
> minimum stuff properly, then of course it is useless. As I pointed to
> queequeg earlier, the LanguageTools doesn't appear to flag the mistakes
> that queequeg does in its example does. Not one mistake! That is what
> surprised me.
>
>
>
> >
> > A new API is in progress, and much of it is ready for OOo 3.0. New
> > versions of the language tools will use the new APIs.
>
> Good to know.
>
>
> >> Wonder how LanguageTool's development is tied with OOo's.
> >>
> > The developers of this add-on worked with the OOo developers, which does
> > not mean that they wrote the code, just that they commented and provided
> > feedback during API development.
>
> Okay.
>
> Thanks,
> and warm regards.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
