Community
Participate
Working Groups
It would be nice and help resolve bug 186416, if supplemental dictionaries could be contributed by a plugin, to add plugin specific or platform specific words to the dictionary. As it is right now, any new spelling additions need to be manually merged into one common dictionary. This makes it very difficult to use one common dictionary, and add platform specific spellings for various projects. An example is given in bug 186416 which affects the Web Tools Platform.
Added required dependency.
Simply make the common dictionary shared (e.g. via CVS) as you share other data.
Daniel, I think we aren't on the same page. What I'm looking for is the ability for a plugin to be able to add words that are specific to a particular platform, when it is being used. Sharing the dicitionary between users or people is fine, if you are going to be within a specific group or a team, but not practical for a wide user community. Having the ability for a plugin to add words to a dictionary or specifying a supplemental dictionary to use with it, is a real use case, as documented in bug 186416. Sure, individual users could add the words themselves, but they shouldn't have to add words like Servlet, EJB, XML, XSD, org, etc. By allowing a platform plugin to contribute these words, it makes it much more friendly for user.
k.
Moving to JDT as the current engine comes from JDT Text.
Joining forces with http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/english-dictionaries-apache-openoffice and https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/british-english-dictionary-2/ which have a combined upstream at https://github.com/marcoagpinto/aoo-mozilla-en-dict with monthly releases and similar strict inclusion guidelines - like an entry in the Oxford Dictionary for EN (GB) - might help you safe a lot of housekeeping work here. Those programs use a binary format DIC that contains a list of words that gets inflected by an AFF file. However they also keep a human readable list of words in a TXT file which I guess will be compatible.
(In reply to Dani Megert from comment #5) > Moving to JDT as the current engine comes from JDT Text. I'm in favor of moving the engine to platform as discussed in Bug 185695.
