From: Alan Horkan (horkana@tcd.ie)
Date: Wed Sep 25 2002 - 11:50:17 EDT
> Alan, what do you think about this idea?
i think i am surprised to be asked ...
i am by no means an expert or even enthusiastic amatuer at linguistics.
> makes most sense. Should it go under XAP or AP?
> Spellchecking seems more cross-platform that the other
> parts...?
the more this can be made part of Aspell the better (i mean who is going
to compile and maintain these lists?) anyone talked to the Gnu Aspell
team? anyone know of OpenOffice have considered these issues?
> ispell stuff is ugly - the names have to live in
> tables
> and are not easily extended by non-programmers. I'm
> hoping to improve this. Please give the barbarism
> files logical names based on language tags such as
> "ca.barbarisms" or "ca-ES.barbarisms".
Andrew has made it blindingly clear how inadequate the olde xx-XX codes
are so if we creating a new system can we try and embrace the three letter
codes or whatever the modern answer is even though i strongly suspect it
still does not mangage to cover all the areas. And if we start using the
three letter codes it would probably be wise to harass the
Linux/BSD/KDE/Gnome architectural/infrasctural type people where they
stand on the matter.
> > <AbiBarbarism app="AbiWord" ver="1.0"
> > language="ca-ES">
how about we try and avoid making things abiword specific
if at all possible embrace an existing XML for linguistics
XML Markup Technologies for Working with Linguistic Data
http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~jeanc/corpus-linguistics/
XML/SGML and Computational Linguistics
http://www.cis.uni-muenchen.de/people/Meuss/LinksValid1.html
In fact, to take my own advice whoever is doing this could save a whole
lot of time by asking the experts rather than searching for hours on the
web. Probably best to ask some experts either in linguistics or perhaps
the W3C or Oasis can point out a relevant XML schema.
> Also whether it's part of spelling or part of grammar
> I still want to be able to enable it separately.
> You know, this could be a better way to solve the
> problems of English spelling varieties. British,
> Canadian, Australian, Irish, and US spellings all
> differ slightly and currently each one just decides
> whether to use the british or american hash.
having looked at putting abiword on a floppy disk i noted that the
dictionary file was huge.
Frankly i think that a smaller base dictionary of the standard English
we can all agree on would be useful, most likely it is a really poor
generalised solution and i expect if i actually take a closer look at
ispell or aspell there is some easier way to produce a smaller dictionary
(or the british.hash is probably already small enough).
> Alan, what do you think about this idea?
i have talked around the point for a bit, sorry i cannot give a more
helpful and well considered discourse on the matter but barbarisms kinda
confuse me and i really want an authorative expert i can defer to right
about now.
Sincerely
Alan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 11:55:25 EDT