Le Mer 21 mai 2008 12:58, Martin Hollmichel a écrit : > I agree that it will be essential to have a tool at hand which is > doing > the transition from a raw dictionary to an extension with the help of > an > wizard, maybe this wizard can be provided as an extension ifself ?
No. You don't understand. It is essential to retain the ability to use dictionaries that have been deployed by other means as raw dic/aff files in a non-OO.o-specific directory (and if raw dic/aff does not provide enough data add a third non-OO.o specific file that can be interpreted by Firefox and friends). No matter how good the OO.o-specific extension distribution method is. The ease or goodness or whatever of creating OO.o extensions is totally orthogonal to this problem. This data is used by other apps and thus will be deployed by other apps and OO.o should be able to use it directly no matter how it was deployed without repackaging. The postulate that everything can be an OO.o extension and the only problem is to turn stuff in OO.o extensions is flawed. It will be massively user-unfriendly if people need to deploy and update the same dictionary data first by Firefox .xpi, then by Thunderbird .xpi, then by OO.o extensions (and that's by no means the sum of all the apps that need this data), no matter how cool and all-singing each individual extension system is. It took a while but the same insanity was finaly resolved fonts-side. A dumb shared store is much better than private smart duplicated data silos. -- Nicolas Mailhot --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
