I would like to clarify this feature request:
Even if you are not able to update the default dictionary to include
versions of words like ?aren?t? using real apostrophe Unicode
characters, at least make it possible for me to add them to my own
custom dictionary.
The fundamental problem I face today is that the spell checking code
does not recognize a real apostrophe character as a valid word
element. It thinks ?aren?t? ends at the ?n? so I cannot even add it to
my dictionary.
Is there a workaround for this? If not, could I make an urgent (to me,
that is) request for this to be fixed?
Thanks again,
-Jim
On Jan 23, 2009, at 14:09, Jim Elliott wrote:
> Thanks for letting me know, anyway. This the only major frustration I
> currently cannot resolve with the editor, so I do hope you will fix it
> in the future. Nobody who cares about the look of their printed
> documentation will want to use foot marks rather than real apostrophes
> just to please the spelling checker. Hopefully you will be able to use
> a program to automatically feed apostrophes into the dictionary the
> next time you build it, wherever a foot mark is currently found.
>
> -Jim
>
> On Jan 23, 2009, at 13:38, Hussein Shafie wrote:
>
>> Jim Elliott wrote:
>>> My next question concerns the spelling checker. Although it seems to
>>> work fine when you use foot marks (') for apostrophes in words, i.e.
>>> it recognizes ?doesn't? as valid, it fails to realize that actual
>>> apostrophes (?) are the real thing that foot marks are standing for
>>> in
>>> less typographically attractive documents. It flags ?doesn?t? as a
>>> misspelled word (?doesn?) followed by stuff it ignores.
>>>
>>> Is there any way I can get the spelling checker to recognize the
>>> apostrophe character as the same as the foot mark?
>>
>> No, unless you rebuild the English dictionary (not recommended
>> because
>> you don't have its original word list, hints, etc, sources).
>> http://www.xmlmind.com/dictbuilder.shtml
>>
>>
>>
>>> This should be the default behavior in a future release,
>>
>> We'll consider this enhancement for a future release.
>>
>>
>>
>>> but I am hoping there is a workaround I can use until then.
>>
>> I'm sorry but there is no easy workaround for this problem.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> XMLmind XML Editor Support List
> xmleditor-support at xmlmind.com
> http://www.xmlmind.com/mailman/listinfo/xmleditor-support
