https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=168624
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Clark <[email protected]> --- Some arguments: - This UX carries all of the same baggage we see with the language trichotomy more generally (bug 162336). LO does not function correctly for language users unless configured properly, and in order to configure it properly, users must know ahead of time how we categorize their languages into our trichotomy. The language trichotomy is *not* a natural partitioning of writing systems; it's just something office suite programmers invented. We shouldn't expect users to understand our implementation details in order to use our software correctly. - This UX does not allow users to configure more than one language per group. That's counterintuitive: our Western, CTL, and CJK categories are geographically-clustered. Bilingual within the same category is the more common case (e.g. English and German), but our current UX subverts expectations by making the more common case impossible to configure. Due to LO implementation details (bug 151215) we can't yet do anything too interesting if users could set multiple languages within the same group, but we're leaking those implementation details by disallowing the attempt. - Having a single preferred proofing language across all categories is significant for Office interoperability. For example, bug 167673. - Having a user-specified, prioritized list of proofing languages would unlock further UX improvements in certain areas. For example, we could simultaneously fix bug 95274 (user cannot choose the language for a selection because it is not offered as a candidate) and bug 47896 (user cannot choose the language for a selection because it is buried by irrelevant candidates) by always letting the user select from among their configured proofing languages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
