Comment # 6 on bug 1052970 from Tom���� Chv��tal

(In reply to Frank Sundermeyer from comment #4)
> I am not happy with replacing aspell by hunspell as suggested in FATE
> #323578.
> 
> aspell has much better support for HTML, XML, and TeX. Both spell checkers
> support these formats (by ignoring commands and tags), but aspell allows to
> specify certain tags/commands for TeX, XML and HTML that get checked.
> With this you can, for example, check alt-Tags in HTML.
> 
> Aspell also lets you create your own filters, or, for HTML/XML lets you
> explicitly specify which tags to check and which ones to ignore. 
> Hunspell, for example, offers no way to ignore preformatted text (such as
> program listings or command output) in spell checks. aspell does.
> 
> As for DAPS, the usage of aspell is hardcoded (DAPS is a tool to process
> DocBook XML). Dropping aspell would not only mean that I would have to
> change DAPS' spell-checking code, it would also mean that DAPS will loose
> functionality for reasons mentioned above.
> 
> I strongly suggest to keep aspell.

As I said on the FATE request. I will have to dig a bit more if it is possible
to specify tags. Actually, I see there is -X option in the hunspell to parse
the xml input format.

For the latex, I am perfectly sure it has tex mode with -t parameter (as I use
it to spell check my slides :)).

For the DAPS well again we have old dictionaries that are really not updated
compared to myspell (hunspell) which are kept up-to-date.

FWIW you can specify more dictionaries to make use of the checking using the
hunspell:

hunspell -d en_US -p local_whitelist -X myfile.xml

I still think if something is missing then we should either implement it in
hunspell or open features to get it done in future.

Aspell last release is aprox 2011 and we have same version in SLE11 as in TW...