Le 15 août 07 à 16:00, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit :
But, except for that, I like your proposal a lot. I think it's
easier to implement than all the other proposal and it doesn't
touch the core (provided you don't store the info in the document
of course). At the end, spell-checking is a frontend thing,
nothing to do with the document contents.
Why do say this is easier to implement than other proposals?
That's exactly what's in my patch (bug 1509)
Ah? Sorry I haven't followed very well this thread. I just read
Christian's mail and it did made a lot of sense. I've seen some
patches that modified the Insets themselves and I don't like that.
I guess that was another proposal.
The class Inset already has an allowSpellchek() method. What I
proposed is just to use it.
(despite there's also a layout keyword...)
Which is fine IMHO. As long as you don't touch the document
contents, I am happy :-)
A special inset would be a good complement to deal with instance
level (which in the patch is achieved with branches).
A special inset for disabling spellchecking looks wrong to me. Even
i you think that some part of the document needs no spellcheck, a
co-writer might think otherwise.
Yes, but as such an inset class would be dedicated to this (e.g.
NoSpellcheckInset), the co-writer could see that and even delete it
if he wants.
OK, sorry for interrupting this discussion, I'll let you guys
design the proper solution ;-)
Opinions from everybody are welcome :)
Mael.
