[libvoikko] Another language for voikko: Avar!

[Francis Tyers]

El dl 10 de 03 de 2014 a les 19:05 +0200, en/na Harri Pitkänen va
escriure:
> On Monday 10 March 2014 11:17:18 Sjur Moshagen wrote:
> > After a short discussion with Fran, here is what I suggest:
> > 
> > * add support for another error model in the zhfst file, tentatively named
> > errmodel.encoding.hfst
> 
> OK.
> 
> > * add a check box to the speller configuration
> > dialog, to allow automatic corrections of encoding errors
> 
> OK.
> 
> > * if the check
> > box is checked, when the text is run through the acceptor, every unaccepted
> > string that can be automatically turned into an accepted string using this
> > error model is automatically changed to that string; other errors are
> > treated the usual way
> 
> OK.
> 
> > * if the check box is _not_ checked, behave as now,
> > and let encoding errors be handled by the default error model
> 
> OK. Should it be checked by default? And more generally, should the old or new 
> behavior be the default for applications that do not know about this new 
> setting? For many applications we cannot provide a settings dialog at all.

IMHO, the old behaviour should be default. We shouldn't apply the
encoding fixing model unless it is explicitly requested by the user.

https://xkcd.com/1172/

> > * if such an
> > error model is not found, the check box is greyed out or otherwise not
> > accessible/setable
> 
> This sounds like a minor detail but would in fact be quite hard to implement. 
> Currently the preferences for libreoffice-voikko are the same for all 
> languages while such error model might be available for only some of them.
> 
> > That is, using a special error model it should be possible to implement a
> > safe autocorrect mode for encoding errors. Care has to be taken to ensure
> > that the error model only generates one suggestion for each input.

This might be difficult. Perhaps it would be better to just fix it if
there is only one suggestion ? e.g. skip in cases of ambiguity.

> > Does this sound like a viable option?
> 
> Yes, and if we are willing to accept that the check box is never grayed out it 
> should be relatively easy to implement.

I think this is fine for now, we can put the greying out on the
wishlist. :)

Fran