4 ms·
> usefulness trumps purity. Usefulness of such behavior is objectionable. Characters with and without diacritics are different graphemes, part of different wor
by zajio1am 6y ago
> usefulness trumps purity.
Usefulness of such behavior is objectionable. Characters with and without diacritics are different graphemes, part of different words. If i search something, i do not want to get plenty of irrelevant results. Just that happened to me few days ago, when i entered a rare word root to search box in Firefox and was surprised that got plenty of irrelevant results because there was common word differing in diacritic marks.
Even if sometimes there is a text written without diacritic marks where there should be, it is usually consistent for whole document, so if i search some word that contain diacritics, i know whether to enter the word with or without it.
- enriquto 6y agoI guess we can all agree that there must always be an option to select between strict matches (without identification of different characters) and fuzzy matches, with varying degrees of "fuzziness" (diacritics, case, etc).
- necovek 6y agoI don't think we "all" can ever agree on something "always" being true. I can imagine cases where enough context is available and you can only do the actually usable search. Heck, even Google doesn't give you any option, though I frequently hate that.