Selon Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Selon Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > We could think of a more sophisticated behavior: in the layout files, the > > > keyword (e.g. spellchecking) could store one of 3 values: on/off/select. > > "on": > > > spellcheck the inset; "off": don't spellcheck the inset; and "select": > > choose > > > from the spellchecking dialog whether to spellcheck or not. > > > > Why does the term "gas plant" come to mind? ;) > > Perhaps because this could become true if one would abuse of the select > option > :-) > > Ok, forget about it, but the on/off wouldn't be too much IMO. I always have > to > ignore misspelled words from notes; this is really annoying. However, that's > my > own usage of notes, and some other users would surely like to spellcheck > notes. > > > I do not think we are looking for a "everything is customizable" > > solution. > > Agreed. More and more things tend to be customizable into layout files. > Nevertheless, that's no problem for the standard user because he/she won't > have > to worry about them. > > I keep thinking, however, that it wouldn't be much confusing to have a few > checkboxes into the spellchecking dialog for enabling/disabling spellchecking > of > some standard layouts such as notes or comments. These could be hardcoded, I > admit.
... On the other hand, there could be a much more simple solution: 1. Disable spellcheck for any code-inset (LyX code, listings...) -- perhaps it's already the case; 2. Add only one checkbox to spellcheck dialog: something like "Spellcheck only (what goes to) output", or just "Ignore spellcheck for notes and disabled branches"; 3. Introduce something else to deal with instance level. IMHO a special inset would be better than the language "none"... (less confusing: none ~ not foreign = document language) JMarc, not too much gas pipes in this plant, don't you think? ;) Mael.
