[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bug 130397 (Was: Emacs - Ispell problem with i[no]german dictionary)

From: Lionel Elie Mamane
Subject: Re: Bug 130397 (Was: Emacs - Ispell problem with i[no]german dictionary)
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:06:41 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i

On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 06:13:06PM +0100, Agustin Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 09:37:32PM +0900, Kenichi Handa wrote:

> Thanks for the tip. I am not maintaining emacs, but a package for
> the common dictionaries setup (dictionaries-common) that provides a
> recent and patched ispell.el for all the diferent emacsen flavours
> ({x}emacs) to integrate the different dicts and spellchecking
> engines in some way. I will be happy to test this once is included
> in sid emacs.

>>> I am playing with redefining ispell-get-coding-system function in
>>> ispell.el so dict coding-system is changed to iso-8859-15 if was
>>> originally iso-8859-1 and emacs has iso-8859-15 as
>>> buffer-file-coding-system, something like

>> But, anyway, I think the above function is too ad-hoc.  As
>> iso-8859-1 and iso-8859-15 contains different set of characters
>> (even if they are few), it's not good to treat them as the same
>> thing.

> I was aware of this, but anyway thanks for reminding. Code is
> probably too ad-hoc, but latin{0,1} thing is also a somewhat ad-hoc
> scenario, where latin0 should have really be named as something like
> iso-8859-1v2, that is, a revision. I cannot imagine somebody using a
> iso-8859-2 dict and trying to write in a iso8859-1 buffer, but with
> iso-8859-1 and iso-8859-15 that is happening too frequently.

> So we have a lot of people that blindly select the locale @euro
> variant without realizing its implications, and that iso-8859-1 and
> iso-8859-15 are different, but very close encodings (from a
> practical point of view, they are fully equivalent for most
> languages but IIRC french and finnish).

> The current state of ispell dicts in Debian is that ifrench is iso-8859-15
> as default (although has a real latin1 entry).

> So the only language that might currently require extra work is
> french, and for it I find reasonable to use for emacs as default the
> iso-8859-15 entry (tagged as iso-8859-1 for the above sustem to
> work). For this I would like to hear Lionel's point of view, since
> he has put a lot of effort to make iso-8859-15 available for
> spellchecking (Hi, Lionel).

I think that if we do that, then latin1 text won't be spell-checked
correctly: Ispell will try to insert "one half" and "one quarter"
characters (the characters occupying the same place as OE and oe in
latin9), won't it?

> I personally do not like having separate iso-8859-15 entries unless
> they are really required. For the above dicts, that would be for
> french, and I am not at all sure that it is really required.

Having separate entries that the user has to select manually is bad,
but it is the best we can have with the current system if we want to
keep correctness of the spell-checking, as far as I understand. Having
the system (the combination of emacs + dicts-common + the dicts)
select the right dictionary + options combination automatically based
on the (language, encoding) pair (like "-d francais -T ~latin1" for
french and latin1) would be cool from the user's POV.

We have special entries for "(La)TeX", which can be seen as another
encoding, so why not special entries for iso8859-15 (when necessary)?
What is so fundamentally different about iso8859-15?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]