Le jeudi 31 octobre 2013 08:10:18 UTC+1, Steven D'Aprano a écrit : > On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:49:28 -0700, wxjmfauth wrote: > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > I'm glad that you know so much better than Google, Bing, Yahoo, and other > > search engines. When I search for "mispealled" Google gives me: > > > > Showing results for misspelled > > Search instead for mispealled > > > > > > But I see now that this is nonsense and there is *absolutely no reason* > > to match something other than the ecaxt wrods I typed. > > > > Perhaps you should submit a bug report to Google: > > > > "When I mistype a word, Google correctly gives me the search results I > > wanted, instead of the wrong results I didn't want." > > > > > > > > -- > > Steven
As far as I know, I recognized my mistake. I had more text processing systems in mind, than search engines. I can even tell you, I am really stupid. I wrote pure Unicode software to sort French or German strings. Pure unicode == independent from any locale. jmf -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
