Selon Dov Feldstern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Mael Hilléreau wrote: > > Selon Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> I want my disabled branches spellchecked. :-/ > >> I write a test with hidden answers. I want to spellcheck everything, > >> so I can print the answers later without further checking & editing. > > > > That's why there's a checkbox in the preference pane :) (see the patch at > bug > > 1509). > > Helge is right (I'm not sure if this is what he meant or not) in that > there's a difference between Notes and disabled branches. Presumably, > notes are not meant to be output (though even that is not certain, > especially given that it's now very easy to switch between different > kinds of notes, some of which *are* output), whereas inactive branches > *are* meant to be output, just not in every "version" of the document. > So it's very possible for someone to want to spellcheck inactive > branches, but not notes.
Agreed. I have a simple solution: use 2 checkboxes. One for notes, the other for disabled branches. > But this starts getting really complicated. On the one hand, as JMarc > said, we don't need to go with "everything is customizable". On the > other hand, I think that it is bad if the spell checker ignores text > which the user thinks that it is checking --- so it should be very clear > to the user what is or is not being checked. And ignoring text --- any > text, even if it isn't going to be output, even if it's in a code > segment --- without letting the user have it spell checked could be very > annoying to some users. I propose: default value = spellcheck anything unless the layout says not to do it. If the user clicks on the checkbox, he'll know what will happen. > The question is, can we reach some kind of solution which will, on the > one hand, be simple (hopefully also to implement, but more importantly: > for the user to understand how it works) and on the other hand, flexible > enough to handle all these different preferences? > > It seems to me like perhaps the best solution is to have a character > attribute --- similar to language or font --- which specifies whether > or not text is to be spell checked. On top of that we can add another > layer which will automatically set this attribute in an intelligent way > (ignore text which doesn't go to output, etc.) --- but since the base > level is simple, it's not so important if the layers on top of that > don't always do the right thing. This solution could then also be > integrated into the spell checker, and then when a word pops up which we > want to ignore in a specific instance (and not add to the personal > dictionary), all the spell checker needs to do is change this attribute > for that specific instance of that specific word. Finally, we could also > optionally mark this in the GUI (say, with a green underline, similar to > the blue underline used to mark foreign languages) so that the user can > always easily find out what is or is not being spell checked. What about an inset? This would be clear enough IMO. And that doesn't exclude having a list of ignored words per document. Mael.
