https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155087
--- Comment #23 from cipricus <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Gabriel Masei from comment #22) Thank you for your helpful intervention, which fully satisfies my expectations. > If there is a probability, however small, that the > suggestion could be wrong or the existing form could be a valid one then no > auto-correction should be performed. For the purpose of this bug report, this principle is largely enough to suport my specific propositions. Except the few erroneous entries which are obviously caused by human error, the rest are misguided by the idea that valid forms may be corrected. (My initial example is one of the most obvious: "a oua" is a very commonly used verb meaning "to lay eggs", while "ou"=egg, is a neuter noun, that is, with plural form identical to that of the feminine: "ouă"=eggs, "ouăle"=the eggs. ”Găina oua”= the chicken was laying eggs. Thus, ”oua” is the correct form of two tenses of that verb, much more than a small probability of correctness.) > the three principles are for DEFAULT replacements, > that are part of the installation package. Why is that specification necessary? What other than the default list (part of the code) can be the object of these principles? (You mean the users must still feel free to keep changing that list as they please? Or is it something else that you mean?) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
