Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Then many things are already ugly, e.g. charstyles :) Storing a
spellchecker setting into a character or font is senseless, whereas
an inset is designed for functional purposes.
Well, calling "senseless" the method used by all other word processors
is a bit weird.
Are you sure of that? It seems to me that Word and OpenOffice adds
"ignored words" into a list and not to the word font definitions or
character attributes itself. Actually, I still cannot understand why
some of you want to put the spellchecking attributes into a word font or
want to create an NoSpellChecker inset. IMHO there are really four use
cases that are worth supporting:
1) you want to ignore some words: the chance are very high that you want
do that in _any_ document. So this information has nothing to do in the
document. The ignored word should be put on a list of ignored items.
Then, it is as easy to just add these words to your personal dictionary.
Maybe Am I missing something here?
2) you want to avoid spellchecking of entire paragraphs. The is high
that these paragraphs are external citations or something like that.
Putting the non-spellcheck attrubutes in the layout definition makes
then a lot of sense. But then you don't want to limit yourself to a
single layout. In this case, then the new layout is not the solution and
you need a specialised inset; hence the third use case:
3) you want to avoid spellchecking of a formatted text (with multiple
layouts). An InsetCitation is the solution. InsetCitation would derive
from InsetCollapsable and it's only purpose is to disable spellchecking.
4) you want to avoid spellchecking on some insets of your choice. The
GUI dialog proposed by Christian (ignore Notes, etc) is the ideal solution.
Sorry Mael, I still haven't read your patch and maybe that's exactly
what your patch is doing but I'd thought I share my ideas as you said
that all opinions are welcome :-)
Abdel.
