Spell Check a String with ASP and Microsoft Word Automation
Search engines like Google provide helpful suggestions on new searches if you happen to misspell a word in your search query. Essentially the code to perform a spell check opens the Word object on the server, adds the user’s search query to it, and then uses the proofing capabilities of Word, returning the suggested spelling corrections. Using Microsoft Word on the server-side has some performance and security implications, as discussed later in the article. Note that for this code to work you will need to have Word installed on the Web server and setup so that the anonymous Web user can perform Word automation. Next, we must create a document in the Word object whose content is the user’s query that we wish to spell check.
Count If NumberOfErrors = 0 Then ‘There are no spelling errors… Else ‘There is at least one spelling error… End If. If there are spelling words we want to loop through each word in our document, determining if the word is spelled correctly or not. If NumberOfErrors = 0 Then ‘There are no spelling errors…
Else ‘There is at least one spelling error… ‘loop through each word in the document i=1 while i 0 then ‘Yes, there are errors, see if there are any suggestions if objDocument. Name else ‘There were no suggested spellings for this misspelled word end if else ‘The word was spelled correctly end if i = i + 1 wend End If. That’s all there is to it code-wise. Setting Up Word SecurityTo run this code you will need Microsoft Word installed on the Web server with the proper security settings. Word automation with VBS is not well documented, but there is a good documentation for VBA available here.
Performance of this ApproachAt each Web request to the ASP page, Word is opened and closed, which can be costly; hence, this is best suited for sites with limited load. In my informal tests I’ve found that execution times for a three word queries is typically 0.5 seconds, once the objects are created. ConclusionWhile using Microsoft Word server-side is not for everyone, but there are certain situations where the use of server-side Office automation is really helpful.
Microsoft does not currently recommend, and does not support, Automation of Microsoft Office applications from any unattended, non-interactive client application or component, because Office may exhibit unstable behavior and/or deadlock when Office is run in this environment. If you use an Office application from a server-side solution, the application will lack many of the necessary capabilities to run successfully. Problems using server-side Automation of OfficeDevelopers who try to use Office in a server-side solution need to be aware of five major areas in which Office behaves differently than anticipated because of the environment. Office applications assume a user identity when the applications are run, even when Automation starts the applications. Office 2000, Office XP, Office 2003, and Office 2007 use Microsoft Windows Installer technology to make installation and self-repair easier for an end user.
The stability of Office in general cannot be assured when Office is run server-side because it has not been designed or tested for this type of use. Current licensing guidelines prevent Office applications from being used on a server to service client requests, unless those clients themselves have licensed copies of Office. Because of the limitations to Office’s design, changes to Office configuration are not enough to resolve all issues. NET 3.x Framework to edit Office files without using the Office client applications themselves. NET Framework 3.0 to create and then to stream an Office Word 2007 document and an Office Excel 2007 workbook to a client computer.
For a listing of the MIME types for Office 2007 files, visit the following Web site:If you are targeting pre-Office 2007 clients only, and you do not want to require the use of Open XML in the solution, you can use other non-binary Office file formats, such as HTML, XML, and RTF. You can then stream these files to a client by using a MIME type so that the resulting text appears in Office. If your business requires the server-side creation of the Office 97, Office 2000, Office XP, and Office 2003 binary file formats, third-party vendors offer components that can help you.
The automation of systematic reviews
The Cochrane handbook stipulates that systematic reviews should be examined every two years and updated if needed,1 but time and resource constraints mean that this occurs for only a third of reviews. Such automation is needed in the update and even creation of systematic reviews, because the capability of the human machinery for review increasingly lags behind our capacity to produce primary evidence. 3 The current reality is that many reviews are missing or outdated,4 and it is hard to imagine a solution that does not involve some automation. The idea of automating aspects of systematic review is not new, and computer systems that can reason from the literature to support clinical decision making have long been imagined. 12 An early example is a system that monitors the literature and alerts reviewers when new evidence appears that is likely to change the conclusions of a systematic review. Natural language generation algorithms can help publish systematic reviews by generating human readable text from trial reports or banks. In light of systems already available, intelligent systems could probably be derived to help across these four main tasks of performing systematic reviews, to learn from reviewers, and then to replicate their approaches.
As reliability improves, these tools will move from aiding humans to becoming reliable autonomous systems that can update systematic reviews with the latest available evidence. Currently, many systematic reviews, and all Cochrane reviews, require well structured peer reviewed protocols before any review of the evidence starts,1 to ensure objectivity and repeatability of the review. Throwing our limited resources at the diminishing returns of hand crafting systematic reviews is no longer sustainable. Automating even small steps in the process of systematic review will shorten the time before reviews are published and increase the number of questions for which reviews are created. Eventually, the notion of a review having a fixed publication date and becoming almost immediately out of date will disappear as autonomous agents sift the evidence continuously and use their protocols to provide updated reviews on demand.