> On 24 Feb 2015, at 10:13 pm, jan i <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 24, 2015, Peter Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On 24 Feb 2015, at 4:23 pm, jan i <[email protected] <javascript:;>> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi. >>> >>> In theory all we miss to graduate (REMARK I am not suggesting we should >> try >>> to graduate now, merely stating facts) is showing we can produce >> releases. >>> >>> I would really like us to make a release, and have a baseline. >>> >>> To me the first release should contain: >>> - DocFormats, basically as it is now (it works) >>> - Utilities..dfutil etc. (we need to get the test suite to work) >>> - Editor (we need to get it working in webkit with e.g. firefox) >>> >>> My intention is just to have baseline, and then in the next release be >>> better. >>> >>> I think we are very close from a code pow, so why not give it the last >>> meter, and get it done ? >> >> I think we should wait until we have a usable editor. This is quite a lot >> of work in terms of designing a UI. I think this will make the project at >> least 3 times as interesting as it is without an editor, and provide much >> stronger motivation for people to get involved. >> >> The editor UI design (and mockups, including) can actually be begin >> entirely independently of the editing library, with subsequent integration >> of the two. Basically we need the standard kind of things - a toolbar, >> drop-downs for selecting fonts and colours, a dialog for style management, >> and of course opening and saving files. For the web-based version of the >> editor, this requires a server-side component (which could be in any >> language - I’d choose Python, but there are many other good options) to >> handle access to the filesystem. >> >> So I suggest we start a discussion on the editor UI, and I’d love to see >> people’s ideas on what it might look like and how it could work. We may >> also want to consider whether to use an existing UI framework like >> bootstrap for this, or whether to roll our own. >> >> Having said this, a very basic (ugly, awkward, but functional) UI won’t be >> a huge amount of work to code up, and after I’ve finished my current >> backlog of bug fixes in the editing library I intend to put one together so >> that people can at least start using it, and others wanting to work on the >> code can take it from there and improve or replace the UI. > > > for a first release that would be more than enough, I would even advocate > that the library is enough. > > people do not come streaming just because we have made a release, but it is > an important signal to send, that we are alive and on our way. > > It would make a talk in Austin more interesting, to be able to say we have > just made our first release, which merely show what we intend to do. > > As a wise man said.....too perfect is no good.
:) I suggest we aim for a very barebones UI (which you and I can work on together, and hopefully others if interested - Gabriela?) and aim for an initial release prior to Austin. How does that sound? — Dr Peter M. Kelly [email protected] PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
