2007/1/17, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2007/1/17, Fabrice Colin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 1/17/07, Jean-Francois Dockes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jos van den Oever writes:
> > > I get the feeling that this is a point on which people will always
> > > disagree, so I'll just say that my experience is difference. If I
want
> > > to look for both 'example' and 'examples', I use example*. You're
> > > right that since some time Google has enabled stemming, so I have to
> > > use '+example' quite often when I want to search. So we could vote on
> > > having it on per default or not.
> >
> > Ok, and I see that after checking, and to my surprise, neither Apple
Search
> > Kit nor MSN Search seem to use stemming, so I guess that we either need
an
> > interface to let the user set this kind of preference, or let the
> > backend use its own default.
> >
> I would prefer this to be back-end specific. For stemming to be useful,
you need
> to know what the language of the query is. Another can of worms...
Right. Let's not get lost over stemming issues since it is not a huge deal
(i'm not saying it is not important).
Can we agree on the following: Stemming will be assumed to be on, but it is
not catastrophic if an engine just don't do stemming at all. Engines can
provide an extension to explicitly turn stemming off. In other words - keep
things as they are (regarding stemming).
Stemming requires a language too. So I suggest to add the language
code as an attribute to the stemming option. Whether to use stemming
per default: since I've not implemented it, I tend to go with off by
default, but I can live with your formulation fine.
Cheers,
Mikkel
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
