Ruud Baars wrote: > Mathias Bauer schreef: >> Ruud Baars wrote: >> >> >>> Thomas Lange schreef: >>> >>>> Hi Ruud, >>>> >>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the update. Is this feature activated per language or >>>>>>> globally? >>>>>>> >>>>>> The mid-hyphen as part of the word will be activated globally. >>>>>> As for the pre- and post-hyphen, those will be available only per >>>>>> language upon request. >>>>>> >>>>> Thomas, should the request com from the localization team? If so, I >>>>> will forward them the issue. When not, consider this the request for >>>>> Dutch. There is no problem with the 'in between sentence', since >>>>> these require a long dash, and spaces arount these. >>>>> >>>> If you want the special pre- and postfix handling for hyphens as well, >>>> just add a respective line to issue 64400 (see my latest comment there). >>>> >>> I passed this one on to the localisation team. We will have to prepare a >>> 3.2 dictionary anyway. Since we are on the verge of releasing a new >>> dictionary for Dutch, we could create a 3.2-ready version of it. >>> It is a bit of extra work, but it would be helpful for the users. >>> Could you inform us as soon as 3.2 (any prerelease) has implemented this >>> feature, so we can start preparing and testing? >>> >> >> I wonder whether that means that we must provide two dictionary >> extensions then - one for 3.0/3.1 and one for 3.2. Or will this new >> dictionary work fine in 3.1 also as it will just contain a few words >> that wouldn't be passed to the spell checker in 3.1 anyway? >> > Now we generate the dictionary, splitting a word like 'au bain-marie' > into 'au', 'bain' and 'marie'. > In the 3.2-version it shoudl be 'au' and 'bain-marie', which is better. > This list will not be fully functional in 3.1, unless we still add > 'bain' and 'marie', but then the spell checking is of less quality that > could be achieved ... > > So in fact, though it still has to be tested, since the change hasn't > been commited yet, the worst case is there will be a 3.2 and a > 3.1-version ... > We are planning to keep the 3.1-version working in 3.2 however (using > BREAK - in Hunspell). Tis also needs a test .. > But, with the new add-on dstructture, there is no problem is there? > There is a minimal version that could be specified ..
Right, from the development side there is no technical problem with that. As you wrote, it's the opposite, our new extensions makes that much easier than in OOo 2.x. I just wanted to have that clarified and make sure that we have everything in place and tested early enough. And I wanted to discuss the user problems that this might create. For me the need to have two dictionaries just means that we must make sure that we have both ones offered for download in the extensions repository. We can decide later on when it's time to remove the "old" version (maybe if we have less than n downloads in a certain time frame). OOo versions containing a dutch dictionary of course will always prebundle the new version starting with 3.2. The tricky part is updating. We should not change the extension identifier so that people that have installed the Dutch extension manually (as it was not pre-bundled in their OOo version) should get an update notification. AFAIK the notification process is smart enough not to notify if the new extsnsion requires a newer OOo version than the user has installed. But that should be tested. Regards, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "nospamfor...@gmx.de". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lingucomponent.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lingucomponent.openoffice.org
