Dov Feldstern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
Very good points. We could actually start with another feature: implement the LocalWords (in emacs parlance) feature: add a button to the spellchecker saying: accept in this document. The words would be saved in the document and could be removed/edited later in Document>Settings. I think this particular feature is uncontroversial (famous like words). This should remove the need for being able to mark individual words as non-spellcheckable. Then we should try to see how important it is to add per-inset or per-layout customisability. I am not 100% convince that everybody expects that LyXCode is not spell-checked. > 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? Another solution I just made up would be to be able to mark an individual paragraph as not-to-spell-check. This could add an icon in the margin, so that the user is really aware that the thing shall not be spellchecked. But it may be that even this is too complicated. JMarc
