(I just subscribed to this list and tried to construct the References field manually. I Hope it won't broke threads.)
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: [Luca Capello] > > It seems that I cannot find a comparison of the differences spell > > checkers. Please, could you enlighten me on why hunspell should be > > a better default one? > > I can only refer to the knowledge I have gotten from those I know that > work on spell checkers. The features of spell checkers is normally > how well they handle word transformations, concatenations and > proposals. You made good points on what spell-checkers are _technically_ better. I don't know them very well myself but I understand that many of them are not suitable for synthetic and agglutinative languages like Finno-Ugric languages. Hunspell seems to be, though, as it was originally designed for Hungarian. (For Finnish we even need a completely unique system Voikko which is used through libvoikko1 and programs depending on it, see 'aptitude search ~Dlibvoikko1'.) But I think this is not the main point when deciding the _default_ spell-checker for Debian. A spell-checker may be technically superior to others but if it's not supported by many languages (i.e. no dictionary packages) it may not be good default and standard install. I have no opinion about this myself. Finnish users use Voikko anyway and it is installed through the Finnish environment task (or desktop task, I don't remember). I think the question of default spell-checker is more practical than technical; it has to be considered from supported languages' point of view. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
