<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED WONTFIX - spellcheck to indicate a spelling as rare thus usage to be confirmed" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90006#c8">Comment # 8</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED WONTFIX - spellcheck to indicate a spelling as rare thus usage to be confirmed" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90006">bug 90006</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:Nick_Levinson@yahoo.com" title="Nick Levinson <Nick_Levinson@yahoo.com>"> Nick Levinson</a> <pre>Thank you, both. @Heiko Tietze: No, but I think I see the problem. My use case is about rarities across general language, not rarities that become common within one specialty, such as a project. Consider that unabridged dictionaries (like Oxford Eng. Dict.) have more entries than a spell checker has, like floccinaucinihilipilification, because if someone types a rare word they're probably typing it by mistake and it's a misspelling in context, and users want misspellings flagged, so spell checkers usually omit rare words so they'll get flagged as misspellings. The specialty dictionaries, once a word is added, would always approve a spelling, so they're no help. Instead, what I'm proposing is for LO to notice that the spelling is rare in general writing and therefore unlikely because normally it would be an error but maybe it's not this time, so it asks the user. Maybe the given spelling is correct only one time out of forty times that it's used but is wrong all the other 39 times. That word in someone's essay should not be marked as wrong or left unmarked as right but instead should be announced as doubtful. (Example: A legal writer gave an essay to an assistant, who corrected "justiciable" to "justifiable" when the original was right and the correction was wrong. The original is rarely used even in law, which is why the assistant didn't recognize it.) This would help a secretary who is supposed to fix their boss's mistakes and would run mass replacement but should be stopped by LO when a rarity is encountered, with LO treating the encountered string as rare and questionable, not as right or wrong. If Abble is a computer term or name apart from Apple, I didn't find it in Google. If it's a misspelling, I'm not talking about pure misspellings. @V Stuart Foote: For Hunspell or Lightproof, this feature was not listed (<<a href="http://hunspell.github.io/">http://hunspell.github.io/</a>>, <<a href="https://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/lightproof-grammar-checker-development-framework">https://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/lightproof-grammar-checker-development-framework</a>>, or <a href="https://extensions.openoffice.org/project/lightproof">https://extensions.openoffice.org/project/lightproof</a>). If grammar means syntax, Lightproof wouldn't be the vehicle for this feature. I tested <a href="https://languagetool.org/">https://languagetool.org/</a> with floccinaucinihilipilification (with the spelling confirmed in Google and which is in the Oxford English Dictionary (1st ed.)) but the word was simply marked as wrong whether American or British was selected. I also tested the sentence "I practice floccinaucinihilipilification once in a while." The result was the same. That's not what I propose, because "floccinaucinihilipilification" is a real but rare word and is not misspelled. If LanguageTool had the feature I propose, it would have asked me about the rarity in context. It didn't, so it doesn't. I couldn't try <a href="https://www.grammarly.com/">https://www.grammarly.com/</a> Native Apps option, which is only for Win or Apple (I have only Linux and *BSD), and, from what it says about the free version, this feature is not included, although it might be in the paid-for version. The Boolean field I proposed was not "a non-maintainable data structure of alternates". Entries can be maintained by users and others. Alternatives, if they're what you meant, do not have to be provided; if the user believes that a flagged word is an error in context, the user would replace it with whatever word they like, but this feature need not suggest alternative words. I wasn't thinking of a GUI (a hook would be needed for a CLI, too), but was assuming that a field would be a hook that an extension couldn't add by itself. If I'm wrong about that, so be it. You seem to know the internals better than I do, so I won't change the status.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>