Le mardi 29 octobre 2013 06:24:50 UTC+1, Steven D'Aprano a écrit : > On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:23:41 -0500, Tim Chase wrote: > > > > > On 2013-10-28 07:01, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>> Simply ignoring diactrics won't get you very far. > > >> > > >> Right. As an example, these four French words : cote, côte, coté, côté > > >> . > > > > > > Distinct words with distinct meanings, sure. > > > > > > But when a naïve (naive? ☺) person or one without the easy ability to > > > enter characters with diacritics searches for "cote", I want to return > > > possible matches containing any of your 4 examples. It's slightly > > > fuzzier if they search for "coté", in which case they may mean "coté" or > > > they might mean be unable to figure out how to add a hat and want to > > > type "côté". Though I'd rather get more results, even if it has some > > > that only match fuzzily. > > > > The right solution to that is to treat it no differently from other fuzzy > > searches. A good search engine should be tolerant of spelling errors and > > alternative spellings for any letter, not just those with diacritics. > > Ideally, a good search engine would successfully match all three of > > "naïve", "naive" and "niave", and it shouldn't rely on special handling > > of diacritics. > > > ------
This is a non sense. The purpose of a diacritical mark is to make a letter a different letter. If a tool is supposed to match an ô, there is absolutely no reason to match something else. jmf -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
