Issue 53643

Summary:	Numbers are spell-checked when "Check words with numbers" is enabled
Product:	Writer	Reporter:	skelem <steve>
Component:	code	Assignee:	stefan.baltzer
Status:	CLOSED FIXED	QA Contact:	issues@sw <issues>
Severity:	Trivial
Priority:	P3	CC:	issues, nemeth.lacko
Version:	OOo 2.0 Beta	Keywords:	oooqa
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	All
Issue Type:	DEFECT	Latest Confirmation in:	---
Developer Difficulty:	---

Description skelem 2005-08-22 23:55:34 UTC

I typed April, 2005, and 2005 was highlighted as a mis-spelled word when
"Spellcheck/Check words with numbers" was checked.  2005 is not noted as
mis-spelled if the checkbox is unchecked.

Numbers should not be spell-checked!  No one should have to add every number in
a document to his local dictionary.  There should also be a provision to
recognize "hex" numbers, such as 0x00 and 0xFFFF as "numbers", and therefore not
be spell-checked.  With that one exception, the intermixing of digits and
letters should be spell-checked (if the checkbox is selected), but not numbers.

Comment 1 michael.ruess 2005-08-23 08:08:55 UTC

Reassigned to SBA.

Comment 2 yunkong 2005-10-11 09:45:52 UTC

agreed. Found the same on Windows build Writer 2.0 RC.

A.Y.K. Jong

Comment 3 yunkong 2005-10-13 09:23:02 UTC

Forgot to confirm issue..

A.Y.K. Jong

Comment 4 stefan.baltzer 2005-10-19 15:20:43 UTC

SBA->dnaber: According to TL, you are in charge of replacing MySpell with
Hunspell. The HunSpell should accept all numbers as correct.
Note: We considered that "20er" in German or "15th" in English MIGHT be
reasonable proposals when the numbers are within "normal text", but this is such
a rare case compared with the irritation that is caused by the given example
"April, 2005" wich looks much more that "average users daily business".
So this should be fixed alongside the integration of HunSpell. In case the
integration of HunSpell is delayed (does not make it into OOo 2.01), then this
issue should be delayed (re-targetted) as well instead of fixing it in MySpell.

Note: Numbers with decimal and/or thousands seperator ("12.345,67" or
"12,345.67") should not be spellchecked, either. Otherwise, tables
(more-often-than-never filled with such numbers) look ugly.

Comment 5 ooolist2007 2005-10-20 21:23:20 UTC

SBA: actually I'm not the one in charge, Laci does all the work on hunpsell 
and its integration, I'm setting him on CC.

Comment 6 nemeth.lacko 2005-10-21 02:10:31 UTC

Hunspell has already accepted the numbers, but not all numbers with separators.
I will fix it. Target is o.k.

Comment 7 stefan.baltzer 2005-10-21 13:04:27 UTC

SBA->dnaber, nemeth: Sorry. 
Reassigned to nemeth. (The one in charge should be the owner, too).

Comment 8 nemeth.lacko 2005-11-09 05:41:16 UTC

Fixed in CWS "hunspell".

(For handling English ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd, 11111th etc.), need a 
dictionary enhancement. I will make it with the issue
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=55498.)

Laci

Comment 9 lohmaier 2005-11-10 00:47:16 UTC

*** Issue 52499 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

Comment 10 nemeth.lacko 2005-12-15 02:15:31 UTC

set target

Comment 11 nemeth.lacko 2005-12-15 02:16:06 UTC

reassign issue to sba

Comment 12 stefan.baltzer 2005-12-16 11:12:12 UTC

SBA: Set status back to fixed.

Comment 13 stefan.baltzer 2005-12-16 17:23:40 UTC

SBA: Verified in CWS Hunspell.

Comment 14 stefan.baltzer 2006-02-14 14:09:52 UTC

SBA: OK in OOB680_m1 Build 9006. Closed.

Comment 15 jwt 2006-09-08 07:09:50 UTC

English ordinals (1st 2nd etc.) seem to be correctly recognised by the spell
checker but it does not offer an appropriate correction, e.g for "3st" "est" is
offered but not "3rd".

Comment 16 nemeth.lacko 2006-09-08 09:06:58 UTC

Suggestion works with the following new REP replacement declarations
in affix file:

REP st rd
REP st th
REP th rd
REP th st
REP rd th

Unfortunatelly, REP suggestion hasn't worked for longer patterns
(103st, 1000003st etc.), yet. Thanks for your comment.