On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Kumara Bhikkhu <[email protected]> wrote: > At the same time I also understand the demand for > single language versions. Wanting a lighter > program is one. The other is the perception that > "If it's meant for dozens of languages, it > probably doesn't do one well." I'm speaking for > myself as that's the idea I had when I was > looking for a grammar checker extension.
I'm one of the 'why do I need all this stuff? I don't speak these languages anyway'-guys. Therefore +1 for individual language modules/extensions. > Installing plugins over a plugin may be fine for > us, but may confuse some users. It also demands > more work, which I think is not worth doing, at least for the time being. That's also my opinion. LO/OO seem to have the idea of introducing dependencies for extensions but the current implementation just supports the version of LO/OO and the it's not even user-friendly implemented because missing dependencies will result in an error dialog (http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Dependencies) instead of allowing the user to download the dependencies. LO/OO provides dictionaries when installing it. Can't we use them instead of our own hunspell dictionaries? Languages such as german stiff have a huge grammar.xml beside the dictionary, but leaving out the dictionaries is already a huge win: the ZIP has a size of ~24 MB instead of ~44 MB. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Languagetool-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
