Selon Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Dov Feldstern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hmmm, interesting... I think we need to first decide what exactly is > > required. If it's enough to take care of this at the inset-type level, > > then JMarc's suggestion from earlier tonight is probably the simplest; > > My thought was just ERT and Listings. > > If there is _really_ a need to do it on a specific basis, then we shall > go directly to character-level (with or without language).
To character level?? I don't understand. The spellchecker allows to skip at word level. What we need is to skip some parts at a higher level: specific instance of an inset, or some type of inset (bugs 1042 and 1509 deal with this). IMO the inset-type level is more interesting: * on one hand, it could allow to ignore some inset types such as notes, comments, code, etc. (this info could perhaps be stored into layout files); * and on the other hand, we could define a special inset to deal with arbitrary regions: it would only ignore spellchecking. This would need that its instances could incorporate (and be incorporated in) any kind of inset instance. Mael.
