Subject: Re: localization formats proposal
From: Martin Sevior (msevior@mccubbin.ph.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Fri Jul 20 2001 - 00:08:31 CDT
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, [iso-8859-1] Andrew Dunbar wrote:
>
> What it boils down to is that we ship with the
> American hash but not the British hash. I strongly
> feel the British hash has much more widespread use in
> all but one English speaking country as a reasonable
> stand-in for our own English dialects - which seem not
> to have ispell/pspell dictionaries available.
> A good fix would be something roughly like this:
> * Ship with both American and British dicitonaries.
> (Or have a package including British instead)
> * Implement a "Just Works" mechanism that allows
> en-** users to spellcheck documents with a "close
> enough" dictionary instead of having no
We do this already. I have really nice screen shot of text marked American
and British with the spell check "color colour" marked in error the
correct way for each language.
> spellchecking
> (as it is now), or marking the document as some
> other language/dialect just to get spellchecking.
> * Figure out how this really should relate to our
> locale system, options dialog, etc.
I don't understand. We have en_AU en_BR locales now. IS this a Windows
thing?
Cheers
Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Fri Jul 20 2001 - 00:08:47 CDT