> [: Luigi Toscano :]
 > If it works, I would vote for completely replacing check_spell
 > (Chusslove?).

I too thought since introduction of check-spell-ec that in the spelling
engine support it is generally superior to check-spell. However
check-spell did have some extra features in the Pology code (such as the
said XML output) as well as maybe some specific behavior in the spelling
engine. Also, I think it makes sense that the sieve name reflects the
underlying engine it uses. So I would leave the check-spell-ec named as
it is, and rename check-spell to say check-spell-as. (In this way also,
combatibility is being broken in an obvious manner, rather than someone
suddenly getting different results than used to with check-spell).

-- 
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)