This conversation is unfortunately becoming badly fragmented, with separate
concurrent conversations in at least three fora: [i] the LibreLex mailing
list; [ii] an OpenOffice.org mailing list; and [iii] at least one private
email conversation. For reasons discussed below, I suggest all three
conversations be consolidated on the relevant OOo mailing list.

You must be logged in on the OOo web site to use the web mailing list
subscription page. To register go to
<http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/Join<http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/Join>>
to login go to
<http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/TLogin<http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/TLogin>>.


To subscribe to the particular OOo mailing list, first log in to the web
site, then go to <
http://documentation.openoffice.org/servlets/ProjectMailingListList>, then
subscribe to 
<[email protected]<[email protected]>>
using the provided link. The subscription controls are invisible unless you
are logged in.

Folks are welcome to subscribe to the LibreLex list. However, we need to
keep that mailing list private until the project is publicly announced. So
if folks who want to use that list will send me a private email, I'll
provide subscription details.

To avoid further confusion and take full advantage of both the OOo and
LibreLex human resources, I suggest that we end our private email
conversation and use the OOo mailing list for the OTT pleading template
development work, reserving the LibreLex list for development of other law
office software. Given that this is OOo-centric work, it makes more sense --
at least to me -- to do the template development work within the context of
the existing OOo project management structure rather than trying to keep two
separate organizations' mailing lists plus a private correspondence
synchronized on a particular topic. I anticipate that everyone will agree,
so will republish relevant portions of this post on the LibreLex and
OpenOffice.org mailing lists.

[more]

I looked at your attachment and I'm not sure if I understood the
approach. It looked like the main body was a frame instead of the
numbering border. Could you provide a description? I also didn't gather
whether Marbux description below was something new. Sorry this is so
rushed... I need to catch up on work before I have more time to think.


The approach I suggested isn't being used in any of the OOo pleading
templates I've run across. Its distinguishing characteristic is that frames
are located in a document header and the frames include tables. The extant
published templates I've seen so far use only a frame, sans header and
tables. The Header/Frames/Tables approach has many advantages, including:
[i] as a header, the data structure can be toggled off on a later page for
non-line numbered pages such as a certificate of service; [ii] all pages
will automatically have line numbering for the full vertical length of a
standard page's text area as is customary (no pages where line numbering
ends where the text ends without wrapping, as when a hard page return is
used to force a page break); [iii] the use of a table within a frame within
a header can be used to create a framework not only for line numbering and
vertical rules but also for positioning and formatting of firm contact
information.

E.g., consider that because the left frame includes a table, a narrow
2-column table can include firm contact information in landscape (vertical
text) mode centered vertically in the left column with the right column
containing the line numbering and the left-side vertical rule . The right
frame/table is used only for the optional vertical rule on the right, with
the left frame's table border setting providing the means of configuring
whether a right vertical rule is displayed, what rule and color for it to
use, etc.

Although I have not tested the idea, it may be feasible to define a third
frame in the document footer with a one-row table for normal footer content
and a second one-row table that can include multiple cells for positioning
of horizontally centered firm contact information in a choice of a
horizontally left cell, a cell centered horizontally on the document's text
body area, or a horizontally right cell. (In WordPerfect, you don't have to
use the Watermark (Frame) feature to get the same effect because a
WordPerfect document can have two stacked footers per page.)

All of this is largely work-arounds though, pointing to the need for
enhancement requests for OOo to make it easier. The macro milestone
suggested below might make that happen sooner. I.e., the extension needs to
be included in the OOo basic package's distribution or in a well publicized
OOo Law Office Tools downloadable package.

On template requirements, I had a few thoughts. The template should:

[i] Be fully documented with a mini-HowTo for its manual reproduction and
customization, with relevant portions formatted for inclusion in the OOo
User Guide and for inclusion in a new OOo Law Office portal on the OOo web
site, perhaps itself part of a larger portal for OOo Office Types vertical
market support. E.g., other vertical market subportals might be Academia,
Graphic Arts, Government, Enterprise, Small Office, Home Office, etc.

[ii] Be reproducible with a recorded macro, with the HowTo including source
code and explaining steps necessary to customize the macro script, e.g., to
select placement, font formatting, and addition of firm contact information.
The script and documentation would provide a foundation for further
automated document assembly tools that, inter alia, integrate the basic
template with document assembly boilerplate data bases, contact (address
book) managers, etc. (E.g., the firm contact information should be a single
editing point for all document types in an automated office system. That way
if the firm changes addresses, phone numbers, etc., all templates do not
require separate updating.)

[iii] Be accessibility-enabled both for the macro and the HowTo document.

[iv] Be developed within the context of a publicized effort to ensure
participation and review by far more law professionals than presently
involved. We need a template that if possible serves everyone's needs. We
need to develop a solicitation message calling for participation that
includes a project summary and subscription information for the relevant OOo
mailing list.  Present contributors could use the standardized solicitation
message on appropriate Internet mailing lists and web forums; e.g., the
Teknoids mailing list for law school IT specialists,  the OpenDocument
Fellowship  general mailing list, the LibreLex mailing list. I will generate
a first-cut solicitation message for circulation and refinement.

[v] Be developed along with a publicity plan to promote the template(s)'
availability. This particular issue has been a show-stopper for OOo adoption
in too many law offices.

I also think a fairly detailed requirements document in outline form would
be helpful in getting everyone rowing in unison. I will develop a draft
requirements specification as an HTML outline for discussion and refinement,
with a goal of completing the draft and circulating it on the OOo mailing
list recommended above within 36 hours.

I hope no one minds me electing myself to the post of temporary project
coordinator. If so, be assured that I am more than happy to pass the role on
to someone else who has the energy for the task. I do far better at starting
snowballs rolling down the mountain than in chasing them clear to the
bottom. This project has a lot of potential expansibility; it deserves a
project leader with the motivation to shepherd the project longer term.

Best regards,

Marbux

Reply via email to