On Mar 6, 2005, at 9:37 AM, Matthias Basler wrote:
Not yet, but now that you mention the 2.0beta ...
I've been testing the latest versions and checkung Issuezilla. From what I have
seen so far(!) I am not really glad with OOo2.0 yet - and I am not the only
one. See f.e. the article and the user comments to it:
http://software.newsforge.com/software/05/02/25/209222.shtml? tid=93&tid=130
It seems there a number of issues with OOo development:
1) it's a huge code-based that's quite old, so difficult to work with 2) project priorities
I personally think:
- it's a big mistake to prioritize Java in OOo, when the existing Python support is so lacking that people like Rob basically consider it worthless (like, there's no use trying to use Python in OOo); OOo's future success will depend on its support for Python, etc.
- it's a somewhat lesser mistake to focus so much on copying Office. OOo needs to be BETTER than Office, or people won't bother with it
The funny thing is, in trying to copy Office so closely, OOo developers are trying hit a moving target. MS understands they need to evolve Office and exploit XML, and yet OOo is recreating last-year's model.
A case in point is the fact that the UI is still heavily-oriented around word-processing as practiced way back in the 1980s! Get rid of the damned b and i toolbar buttons, and get serious about character styles and mapping them to XML! Think of how to integrate auto-text support into that.
I asked about xforms support because I think this could be a really good thing. I also still wonder if it makes sense to extend it beyond its current document focus.
Also, I think this emphasizes why we ought to rip out the current bib support and make it fully plug-in based. It seems one of the reasons the bib module has languished so much is precisely because it's so closely coupled with SW.
Bruce
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
