Hi David,

On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 17:03 +1100, David Wilson wrote:
> Moving some of our documents to the wiki have proved to be very successful.  
> (The full list is at http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User:Dnw  )
>  
> I have add two more documents on the wiki in the hope that this will enable 
> interested people to add to and improve the bibliographic projects' 
> documentation. In the past people have written some documentation but it does 
> not not seem to get used or improved or updated. This will be easier to do on 
> the wiki.
> 
> I have add 'Enhancements need in Writer to support an improved Bibliographic' 
> module http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Writer_enhancements_for_OOBib
> 
> and 
> 
> 'Functional Requirements of the OpenOffice Bibliographic Module' 
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoBib_Functional_Requirements
> 
> 
> regards
> 
> 
> David
> 

It's really great to have this stuff on the wiki.  Just added some
comments & made some minor typographical changes to the 'Writer
Enhancements' page.  

Also very nice to have the "Functional Requirements" page up.  I wonder
though whether it might not be a good idea to start prioritizing all
these tasks.  So for instance, given CPH's list of SW tasks: 



> 
> 1) parse the citation data (done)
> 2) associate that with the relevant part of the paragraph (working on
> it)
> 2) save the data in the correct format to disk 
> 3) display the citation *as is* (as a first pass)
> 4) provide hooks for the manipulation of the citation data to produce
> the 
> required format in the paragraph (i.e. a UNO interface for your
> scripts to 
> generate the format you require)
> 
> 5) format the citation for the footnote/endnote (is this needed?)
> 6) format the citation for bibliographic table(is this needed ?)


Would (5) and (6), which Bruce calls "a separate chunk of code that
would  use the UNO interface", be a logical next step after CPH does
104?  What form do folks think it should take?  

Alternatively, would it make most sense to design the bibliographic
database next -- since there are so few C coders here, but many people
with some database experience?  

I'm just thinking that if we (I know the first person is a bit iffy
here, as I'm hardly active) can start parcelling the project up a bit
better, we might find that there are a fair number of bits that non-C
programmers can work on.

Matt

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to