Subject: [Tools-discuss] Idspell-0.10 feedback

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 14:44:40 +0200

Cool.

Of course it would be great to be able to add words to the dictionary
in real time.

     Brian

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 16:43:04 +0200

> Of course it would be great to be able to add words to the dictionary

Agreed!

I'd already started thinking about the interface to doing this :-)

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:05:56 -0700

> Of course it would be great to be able to add words to the dictionary

While I appreciate the idea of checks to make sure a general document
fits the I-D requirements, spell and grammar checks are NOT I-D
specific; in fact, I-Ds are likely to stress the edges of both.

I don't see putting a full-fledged word processor up as useful; I'd
suggest focusing on I-D specific items, spiffing up the user interface,
or just leaving it alone.

We ought to encourage authors to do their own grammar, spelling, and
other checks themselves.

Joe

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 17:39:18 +0200

> We ought to encourage authors to do their own grammar, spelling, and

I don't agree on spellcheck. An IETF-specific dictionary is very useful.

     Brian

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 18:23:32 +0200

Hi Joe,

> We ought to encourage authors to do their own grammar, spelling, and

I *so* do agree.  This has been part of my standard draft-producing
pipeline for years, and I at first thought that I'd respond just
that to people asking for tools instead of googling and finding
them, on the wgchairs list a few days ago.

But then I realised that there's one thing which can be provided
here which is not generally available, and that is the ietf-specific
word list which reduces false positives to something manageable.

I see Brian's suggestion in this vein - a possibility for the users
to improve the ietf-specific word list, so there'd be less noise and
greater significance in a report about N potentially misspelled words.

For the same reason, the word-list (generated newly each night) is
available for download separately; there's a link on the 'about' page
which lets you download that for your own use, offline.
(see http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idspell/)

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 09:29:28 -0700

Hi, Henrik,

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
...
> word list which reduces false positives to something manageable.

Yes, as Biran noted.

I *really* like this service, and encourage its development, but I hate
to see time spent providing features I can get commercially or free
myself. *I-D specific* checks are fantastic; that, IMO should be not
only the focus but I encourage it to be the limit of what this does ;-)

Joe

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 19:06:22 +0200

Hi again,

> only the focus but I encourage it to be the limit of what this does ;-)

Then I think we agree.  I don't want to turn this into a general spell-checking service; people should be able to find dozens of those
using google (... I even think I saw spell checking as a google service
somewhere, but I may misremember...).

I also have more projects I'd like to do than I know how to handle; so
there aren't any idle cycles about to be wasted on overdoing this ;-)

	Henrik