Hi Thorsten,
thanks for the reply. I understand now that the structure of the LO
project renders my suggestion infeasible. So lets drop it. I will answer
your questions below.
If you, or someone else, has such a list, would be cool to have it
filed properly in bugzilla& maybe some meta-issue to track.
I'll try to draw one up with Cor Nouws and the other people from LO that
attend the 7th ODF plugfest in Gouda next week (if they have the time
for it).
Even though ODF as a document format has plenty of traction, some
specific parts such as ODF's 3D objects stand less of a chance to
make it as the dominant standard in this area (given that there
are far better and more widely used standards for 3D). In order to
make the experience better for everyone and make at least the
content portable/visible to other (less complete) implementations
I think that should be made more robust by making sure there are
standards based fallbacks (in SVG, PNG) for any such parts.
Here seems to be some incoherence in your argument (that was
previously asking LibO to fill ODF consumer bugs by completing the
implementation), and then you also suggest we fix things that are
shortcomings in other applications.
Of course, this is another point - however, coming from the same concern
which is the experience of the end user. I think it is fair to
acknowledge that features like the 3D objects are unlikely to survive in
ODF in the long term - and rightly so, for ODF's sake. From a pragmatic
point of view these components seem atavistic and without the
historicity of Star Division's long gone past in 3D software components
their presence in the specification would be hard to explain - let alone
justify.
Since it is unlikely that LO will be able to cover the growing billions
of electronic devices out there immediately - though I have a great deal
of confidence in its unlimited future ;) - the high cost of support for
other incomplete (non-desktop) implementations and the subsequent lack
of it will probably negatively impact the end users perception of ODF
and its capabilities to store their content reliably. So my point is
that for the sake of the users we should at least be storing any such
data in a way even the users of a simple implementation with many
shortcomings can still at least see the objects. This would benefit
everyone in the long run, I think.
Best,
Michiel
--
drs. M.A.G.J. Leenaars
Director of Strategy
NLnet foundation
Science Park 400
1098 XH Amsterdam
Netherlands
http://nlnet.nl
sip/xmpp: michiel [@t] nlnet.nl
---------------
'If you want the Internet to grow strong, safe and free,
but you don't know how to help, contribute to NLNet:
they do know and care."
Giorgio Maone, NoScript
Interested what Richard Stallman, Karsten Nohl, Andy Tanenbaum and
many others have to say about what NLnet helped them do for you?
Feel your wallet tingling already? Check out:
http://nlnet.nl/donating/quotes.html
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
