[rt-users] RT Spell Check

[Florian Bischof]

I really don't like server side spell checkers. I don't like the idea to
use ten different spell checking systems, one for each web application.
Different features, dictionaries, usage, user dictionaries.
Spell checking is a task the client should do.

I suggest "ieSpell" to my clients. It is a free Internet Explorer
browser extension that spell checks text input boxes on a web page (see
http://www.iespell.com/). 

Unfortunately there is no such tool for Netscape up to now. Maybe you
wanna help the Mozilla-Developers implementing this:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16409

 -- Florian

Am Don, 2002-11-07 um 21.52 schrieb Michael Grubb:
> Well, I disagree.
> 
> Writing a spell checker for RT has been on my todo list for sometime, 
> (Albeit low on said list =] ),  I think that there is room for an 
> elegant server side solution.
> 
> I was thinking of something very similar to Rick Bradley's solution.
> Except that I had planned on putting a seperate button for spell check,
> and then just replacing the contents of the update box once the check 
> was complete.  My plan is to offer suggestions in a drop down box, with 
> a couple of other options in addition. Having an `Add' and `Custom' 
> option in each.  The `Add' option would add the word to the user's 
> dictionary.  The `Custom' option would mark the word and prompt the user
> for a suitable replacement.  I was planning on adding another text box 
> field to the user preferences to manage the user dictionary.
> My first scratch was not planning on implementing the custom dictionary.
> I was planning on using Aspell as the spell checker.
> I think that it can be done very elegantly with no clunk at all.
> After all I think that the StockAnswers module (packaging problems 
> aside) was a fairly elegant solution.
> 
> That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
> 
> -Michael
> 
> Christian Gilmore wrote:
> > Without doing something client-side (like a java applet that came with a
> > pre-loaded speller/editor), anything you do will be clunky. You could insert
> > an interface to ispell within RT's correspondence method or doing one of a
> > few other possibilities, but in the end you'd accept a correspondence, spell
> > check it, then respond with an error about all of the misspellings for the
> > user to then hunt around. I believe that your best, easiest course would be
> > to ask users to write their messages in an external application and then
> > paste in the result.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Christian
> > 
> > -----------------
> > Christian Gilmore
> > Technology Leader
> > GeT WW Global Applications Development
> > IBM Software Group