[kde-russian] Fwd: Re: koffice + kospell

[kde-russian] Fwd: Re: koffice + kospell

[mok]

Как следует из нижеприведённого письма, разработчики KOffice думают
перейти на aspell. Я с этим никогда не разбирался, поэтому вопрос
такой: хорошо это или плохо для поддержки русского? Будет ли работать
словарь Лебедева с ё? Что им написать по этому поводу?

Гриша

This is a forwarded message
From: Nicolas Goutte <nicolasg@snafu.de>
To: koffice@mail.kde.org
Date: Monday, April 07, 2003, 3:15:03 AM
Subject: koffice + kospell

===8<==============Original message text===============
I really think that the problem is the languages that we drop with this 
change.

>From the kde-devel thread, we have already:
- Polish (aspell seems know much less words.)
- Estonian (no affix support.)

So despite the flexibility of using a library instead of a program, it also 
means that we are in process drop languages that worked in KDE and in 
KOffice.

So I too would prefer a solution where the user could choose at run-time what 
he wants (depending on the language would be even better but is perhaps too 
much work.)

Have a nice day/evening/night!

On Monday 07 April 2003 00:46, David Faure wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sunday 06 April 2003 18:18, Laurent Montel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Now I fixed bugs in kospell.
> > It used libaspell.
> > So if I decide to switch kpresenter/kspread/kword completly to kospell (
> > not possible to use two codes ( problem with config )), koffice will
> > require aspell-0.50.3.
>
> Since kospell is modelled after kspell, in terms of API, I was hoping that
> the "backend" (libaspell or aspell/ispell) could be chosen inside kospell
> itself (I mean the one we have in libkotext), without any #ifdefs in the
> applications.... Apparently this isn't possible right now (I see #ifdef in
> kword/kwview.cc etc.).
>
> Questions:
> * is the _API_ of the new libkospell very different from the one of KSpell?
> * maybe there are features that are only available in the new libkospell
> (the list of suggested replacements, for instance?)
> * what's different about the configuration?
>
> Questions to users:
> Are there many users who would see it as a big problem to have to
> install libaspell?
>
> Of course if everyone's fine with that, there's no point in my above
> questions which try to find out if it would be difficult to keep both
> backends. libaspell seems to be the most actively developed solution,
> compared to the old aspell and to ispell, so obviously libaspell "is the
> future"... And requiring it sounds better than having to support both
> cases, with problems difficult to debug etc.
> My concern is simply that good software design would indicate that
> the KoSpell API should be independent from the backend...
>
> - --
> David Faure -- faure@kde.org, dfaure@klaralvdalens-datakonsult.se
> Qt/KDE/KOffice developer