[scribus] 1.3.5 Windows spelling checker ?

[Jeffrey Silverman]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Gora Mohanty <gora at sarai.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:41:26 -0400
> "Jeffrey Silverman" <jeffrey.d.silverman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> @John Beardmore:
>>
>> While I understand your perspective and some of your points, overall,
>> you are coming across like this:
>>
>> (Actually, I'm sorry in advance, because you really don't come across
>> so persnickity/snotty/immature at all, but I thought it would be
>> funnier this way)
> [...]
>
> Hmm, I was going to stay out of this debate, as I am
> by no stretch of the imagination an expert on page-
> layout programs (I use TeX/LaTeX for documents, and
> see no reason to change).
>
> However, humorous as your message was, I am quite
> non-plussed about the attitude that seems to come
> across. My viewpoint is:
> (a) The spell-checker plugin is already implemented.
>    (While I did do the initial work, and would like
>    to see it not go to waste, I really do not care
>    one way or the other.)
> (b) It is a *plugin*. People can choose to use it or
>    not, and while I take the point about added work
>    for core Scribus developers, and possible
>    instability, the point about code-bloat seems
>    rather weak.
> (c) I also took Louis' point about how spell-checking
>    modifications can change the flow of the text, but
>    after pondering on this further, is the same thing
>    not true in the case when someone decides at the
>    last moment to replace a certain word, by a more
>    mellifluous one, or to resize the font. Shall we
>    disallow resizing, too?
> (d) Finally, to me, open-source is all about giving
>    people the choice. When it intrudes minimally on
>    the normal application (plugin, use it at your own
>    risk), I see no reason that Scribus developers
>    should choose to mandate one mode of working over
>    another.
>
> Regards,
> Gora

good word, "mellifluous"

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was not that your spell checker
plug in was a bad idea. It is a good idea. It is even a better idea
since it is a plug in.

My point is that Scribus was not created, from the outset, as a tool
where "spell checker" was on the potential feature list. And there are
a lot of reasons given why this is so.

I also don't think that anyone said "a spell checker is a BAD idea". I
think that the point really is just that it is not on the Scribus
potential feature list, for many valid reasons.

And finally, I don't even think that the developers (is LJ one?) think
that adding a spellchecker is necessarily a bad idea. But it is,
simply, not on the potential feature list, not a priority, and
probably will never be on the potential feature list, for all those
various reasons given.

I think that a spellcheck *plugin* is the perfect way to implement
spellcheck in Scribus. I mean, the plugin capability is there for just
such outlandish[1] features, right? So kudos for building one, even
one made out of chicken wire and glue[2].

later...!




[1] Being facetious, please no flames.
[2] Once again, facetious. I find these cumbersome, long threads
easier to read if a little humor is thrown in occasionally.

-- 
Jeff Silverman
jeffrey.d.silverman at gmail.com