Dear Mike, W dniu 2013-10-18 12:10, Mike Unwalla pisze: > A method to ignore the default LT rules would be useful. In my case, the > STE term checker does not use the default grammar and disambiguation rules.
Why do you want to ignore the default disambiguation rules? I understand why you don't want to have the default grammar rules but the more you disambiguate, the less false alarms altogether...? > Thus, with a method that only links to a user-grammar.xml file and which > does not give me a way to ignore the default disambiguation rules, I cannot > use the STE term checker in OpenOffice/LibreOffice. As Daniel noted, it might be tricky to turn it on and off. The only way I see is to offer STE as a separate module when we modularise the extension. Regards, Marcin > > Is it possible to have a design/structure for OO/LO such that the default LT > grammar file and the default disambiguation file are optional? Conceptually, > something like this, where the user specifies whether LT uses the default > grammar file (and similarly for disambiguation): > > use-grammar-files (X=not selected, O = selected) > O grammar.xml > X project1-grammar.xml > O project2-grammar.xml > X test-file.xml > > Regards, > > Mike Unwalla > Contact: www.techscribe.co.uk/techw/contact.htm > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andriy Rysin [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 17 October 2013 18:07 > To: development discussion for LanguageTool > Subject: Re: Is it possible to use modular XML files? > > I was thinking about this, it looks like our internal code already > operates with list of rule files because it has to support regional > variants (?) so this may be much simpler than supporting xml way to do > inclusions. > > One drawback - it's not easy to add files without modifying Java code > so it'll help my case but won't help much Mike's > > Andriy > > 2013/10/17 Daniel Naber <[email protected]>: >> On 2013-10-17 17:26, Andriy Rysin wrote: >> >>> Yes, I would like it to work for all targets: standalone/addons etc so >>> inclusion should work in jars as well. I'll keep looking. >> >> What if we extend the Language class to return a list of filenames that >> are used to read the rules, instead of having only "grammar.xml" hard >> coded? This way we could also have an optional file "user-grammar.xml" >> which is loaded if it exists and which could carry user-specific rules. >> >> Regards >> Daniel >> >> -- >> http://www.danielnaber.de > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Languagetool-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Languagetool-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
