Re: [tdf-discuss] Need for more compound words for spellcheck dictionary.
RGB ES wrote: AFAIK, hunspell is used for all dictionaries so the problem is not the engine but the dictionary itself: they need to be build around the idea of using compound words and that huge work (it seems) is not complete yet. Ricardo That makes sense, the spell checker works very well except for the fact that it flags far too many words that are not actually misspelled, just absent from the internal word list. My experience is that the vast majority of these words are compound words. 2011/3/2 Friedrich Strohmaier : Hi Robert, *, I'm not very deep involved in spellchecking, but nevertheless trying a shot.. Robert Derman schrieb: RGB ES wrote: AFAIK, LibO dictionaries are the same dictionaries from OOo. If you have a custom dictionary where you added the words you miss, you can "import" (I mean, copy to the right location) that dictionary into LibO user profile. See here for more details about the user profile: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/UserProfile 2011/2/20 Robert Derman : One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason I have not upgraded to LO from OpenOffice 3.1 yet is that I dread having to go through the process of adding over a thousand compound words to the spellcheck dictionary. This dictionary has almost NO compound words in it! Does anyone know if this problem has been addressed with LO 3.3. I am using the U.S. English version. If this severe shortcoming has not yet been addressed yet, I think we should do so before version 3.4. If I remember well german, dictionary changed to hunspell dictionary engine for that reason. German and many more languages' words are compound words in a very wide range so that problem arose from beginning. Not shure what spellchecking engine is used for english languages spellchecking - I guess it's aspell which has poor support for compound words. But all guessed. Not enough insight in that topic. [.. impact of poor spellchecking ..] I have a sort of technical question here. Is there a way for non programmers to actually get a look at the word list that comes with LO? And on a related point, if so, perhaps a group of volunteers could add the words that are needed to that list and then send the enhanced word list to the developers so that it could replace the inadequate word list that is now used. I don't know if the situation is as bad in other languages as it is in English, I do know that German in particular is heavy with compound words. If so, this might need to be done with a number of languages. On reason I am concerned about this is that in most areas where OOo/LO differ from MS Word it could be perceived that they are just different. One is not necessarily better or worse than the other. But as far as the performance of spell checking is concerned, when compared with Word, Writer will be clearly perceived as inferior! Clearly this will not make a good impression on the people in business who make the decisions as to what software their people should be using. Clearly having a spell checker flag many non-misspelled words will slow down workflow and that is a situation that most people in business simply will not tolerate. So if there is not a better word list available that we can just drop in, then we really need to go to work and do it ourselves! On a related subject, I have spent just a couple of hours adding things to the autocorrect which turned it into a fair quality grammar checker, just little things like change friday to Friday, january to January, etc. The grammar checker in Word is pedantic and obtrusive. I truly believe that with a very small amount of work, we could turn the autocorrect into the kind of grammar checker that many if not most people would be very happy with. One other thing, I make extensive use of the autocomplete function, but it has a couple of annoying traits. How much would it take to either make its internal word list optionally permanent, so that you could turn of the gather words function without loosing the autocomplete function completely, or add a few rules like, don't gather strings containing numerals, all caps like from chapter headings, or inappropriate punctuation marks. With a couple of things like this, I believe many more people would actually choose to use this feature, rather than ask how to turn it off. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Need for more compound words for spellcheck dictionary.
AFAIK, hunspell is used for all dictionaries so the problem is not the engine but the dictionary itself: they need to be build around the idea of using compound words and that huge work (it seems) is not complete yet. Ricardo 2011/3/2 Friedrich Strohmaier : > Hi Robert, *, > > I'm not very deep involved in spellchecking, but nevertheless trying a > shot.. > > Robert Derman schrieb: > >> RGB ES wrote: >>> AFAIK, LibO dictionaries are the same dictionaries from OOo. If you >>> have a custom dictionary where you added the words you miss, you can >>> "import" (I mean, copy to the right location) that dictionary into >>> LibO user profile. See here for more details about the user profile: >>> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/UserProfile > >>> 2011/2/20 Robert Derman : One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason I have not upgraded to LO from OpenOffice 3.1 yet is that I dread having to go through the process of adding over a thousand compound words to the spellcheck dictionary. This dictionary has almost NO compound words in it! Does anyone know if this problem has been addressed with LO 3.3. I am using the U.S. English version. If this severe shortcoming has not yet been addressed yet, I think we should do so before version 3.4. > > If I remember well german, dictionary changed to hunspell dictionary > engine for that reason. German and many more languages' words are > compound words in a very wide range so that problem arose from > beginning. Not shure what spellchecking engine is used for english > languages spellchecking - I guess it's aspell which has poor support for > compound words. > > But all guessed. Not enough insight in that topic. > > [.. impact of poor spellchecking ..] > > Gruß/regards > -- > Friedrich > Libreoffice-Box http://libreofficebox.org/ > LibreOffice and more on CD/DVD images > (german version already started) > > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Need for more compound words for spellcheck dictionary.
Hi Robert, *, I'm not very deep involved in spellchecking, but nevertheless trying a shot.. Robert Derman schrieb: > RGB ES wrote: >> AFAIK, LibO dictionaries are the same dictionaries from OOo. If you >> have a custom dictionary where you added the words you miss, you can >> "import" (I mean, copy to the right location) that dictionary into >> LibO user profile. See here for more details about the user profile: >> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/UserProfile >> 2011/2/20 Robert Derman : >>> One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason I have not upgraded to >>> LO from OpenOffice 3.1 yet is that I dread having to go through the >>> process of adding over a thousand compound words to the spellcheck >>> dictionary. This dictionary has almost NO compound words in it! >>> Does anyone know if this problem has been addressed with LO 3.3. I >>> am using the U.S. English version. If this severe shortcoming has >>> not yet been addressed yet, I think we should do so before version >>> 3.4. If I remember well german, dictionary changed to hunspell dictionary engine for that reason. German and many more languages' words are compound words in a very wide range so that problem arose from beginning. Not shure what spellchecking engine is used for english languages spellchecking - I guess it's aspell which has poor support for compound words. But all guessed. Not enough insight in that topic. [.. impact of poor spellchecking ..] Gruß/regards -- Friedrich Libreoffice-Box http://libreofficebox.org/ LibreOffice and more on CD/DVD images (german version already started) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Need for more compound words for spellcheck dictionary.
RGB ES wrote: AFAIK, LibO dictionaries are the same dictionaries from OOo. If you have a custom dictionary where you added the words you miss, you can "import" (I mean, copy to the right location) that dictionary into LibO user profile. See here for more details about the user profile: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/UserProfile 2011/2/20 Robert Derman : One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason I have not upgraded to LO from OpenOffice 3.1 yet is that I dread having to go through the process of adding over a thousand compound words to the spellcheck dictionary. This dictionary has almost NO compound words in it! Does anyone know if this problem has been addressed with LO 3.3. I am using the U.S. English version. If this severe shortcoming has not yet been addressed yet, I think we should do so before version 3.4. My question above appears to have been answered, which leads me to pose the following. I suspect that this may be one of the reasons that businesses continue to stick with MS Office and more particularly MS Word. I have not used Word for quite a while, but from when I did, I remember it having a much better spellcheck dictionary. This is one of the many places where LO needs to do a better job in order to: A. distance itself from OOo, and B. appear to the people who make decisions in businesses as a serious professional grade product, and not just a hobby for software writers with time on their hands. Having a seriously inferior spellcheck dictionary costs time with office workers and thus is in many cases sufficient reason for companies to stay with a proprietary commercial product and shun open source. It leads corporate buyers to believe in the old adage, "You get what you pay for." I believe that this is a thing that non-programmers could work on with a little help and guidance from programmers/developers. I don't know this for sure, but perhaps there is even an open source dictionary program or something, or a public domain word list or something that we could utilize that would be better than the very inadequate spelling check word list we borrowed from OOo. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Need for more compound words for spellcheck dictionary.
AFAIK, LibO dictionaries are the same dictionaries from OOo. If you have a custom dictionary where you added the words you miss, you can "import" (I mean, copy to the right location) that dictionary into LibO user profile. See here for more details about the user profile: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/UserProfile 2011/2/20 Robert Derman : > One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason I have not upgraded to LO from > OpenOffice 3.1 yet is that I dread having to go through the process of > adding over a thousand compound words to the spellcheck dictionary. This > dictionary has almost NO compound words in it! Does anyone know if this > problem has been addressed with LO 3.3. I am using the U.S. English > version. > If this severe shortcoming has not yet been addressed yet, I think we should > do so before version 3.4. > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Need for more compound words for spellcheck dictionary.
One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason I have not upgraded to LO from OpenOffice 3.1 yet is that I dread having to go through the process of adding over a thousand compound words to the spellcheck dictionary. This dictionary has almost NO compound words in it! Does anyone know if this problem has been addressed with LO 3.3. I am using the U.S. English version. If this severe shortcoming has not yet been addressed yet, I think we should do so before version 3.4. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
