To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3395
------- Additional comments from [email protected] Mon Feb 15 02:42:14 +0000 2010 ------- OK, I'm apologizing up front because this will be harsh and I don't have the time to reread 8 years of duplicated posts to get the details that are buried deep inside: Well, if they strip the functionality to directly format content and force us to use Styles to format anything, then they'll be forcing a lot of people to leave OO.o -- because open source people don't like to be forced into anything. I'm one of them. They'll go find another app with more openness. As I'm aware of the open source arena, that's how open source apps become so popular: they cater to their users and implement highly requested features, of which I'd guess RC is one of the most requested. So forgive me now for being harsh and asking without reading the last 8 years of posts again, but why is this such a big headache and why all the years and years and years of fighting it when it's so requested? What in the world do your users have to do to get a feature implemented? The first bug on this was logged 8 years ago! What does it take? Yes, I know there is an ODF format issue (which wasn't even implemented when the first bug was logged), but what's the problem? Why is it so prohibitive? Why can't styles overlap and nest? And for crying out loud, why do they have to be Styles? (In my book, and for millions of others around the world, a Style is defined as a group of formatting codes, and a tag is a single formatting code.) Why can't they just be simple tags, like [Bold On][Bold Off] and [Underline On][Underline Off]? Millions of people all over the world understand that logic. Check out any HTML editor and you will see they ALL are basically RC editors showing beginning and ending tags allowing them to overlap and nest codes/tags, with or without the document preview. Double click on a tag in the better editors, like Dreamweaver, and it pops up the corresponding dialog for you to edit it; hmmm, just like WP! Do people consider that a copy of WP? Who cares if they do? Really. All HTML editors show the tags, and OO.o will format in HTML, so why all the bru-ha-ha? Just show those codes to start out with and build from there. Show the XML codes and go from there. I'm getting tired of the fight. I've been following this since the beginning. What hasn't been said that will convince the developers it's a good idea to get as close to WP's implementation as possible? It's all been said 400 times already! And frankly, what's wrong with adding highly requested features that are already implemented in commercially available apps? Of course OO.o might, in time, offer more than the commercial apps, but who cares if features are copied? If it works and people want it, put it in. Why reinvent the wheel? Just make the wheel more durable and more functional! Beat them at their own game. But at this rate, nothing will get implemented and we're still where we were 8 years ago when the first RC bug was logged. Now that's open source progress! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
