03.05.2016 u 20:49, Michael Bauer je napisao/la:
Totally disagree from experience. Of course, both is better but you try working in a language with not even a spellchecker and then get someone to count the errors. Even mediocre spellcheck coverage kills a good % of typos. I just have to take a random Gaelic page off the BBC and dump it in LO and count the hits.Michael Sgrìobh toki na leanas 03/05/2016 aig 19:35:This goes back to my claim that spell checking without built-in grammar checking is useless.
I agree. Otherwise you can say that no grammar checker is good if it's not n-gram based or such. And there is now way any language smaller then English build something like outside some institute or outside funded project of some sort.
For small languages even having a spell checker is huge. There's quite a few English dictionaries out there to help you with this or that, but when whole country has population equivalent to only one (average) US city, everything is extra hard.
We all know the downsides of spelling checkers but it's just the way it is.And yet, spelling checkers (dumb as they are) and grammar checkers (poor as they are) still do a lot of good.
It's easier to teach people how to write then make decent grammar checker (and that's just the way it is).
-- To unsubscribe e-mail to: l10n+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/l10n/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted