Hi André, On 7/21/06, André Wyrwa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I didn't say you couldn't i wouldn't wanna do that in a WYSYWYG manner. How could apply different styles to different formats in a WYSIWYG manner? Ok, it's obviously bad to use words like "forcing". Makes you go defense mode just by reading it. How about "translating" or "suggesting"? What I'm thinking of has basically been done in this or that way already, just not consequently enough. I.e. MS-Word automatically internally creates a new style for every different formatting. That's basically all we need, together with OOo's ability to have page, image and frame styles. Now all we need is replace things like "bold", "italic" and so on with semantic formatting options like "strong", "emphasis" etc. . And provide default "strong" and "emphasis" styles that are i.e. bold and italic. Okay, what? You want to force users to learn new terms like strong and emphasis, after decades of bold and italics - so that these new terms can do the exact same blank thing as the terms they know and understand? Please explain how that in an improvement. Add a bit of non-interrupting UI that suggests styles to the user. Styles here means it suggests semantic attributes like "Is this a heading?" - "Yes" "No"...or similarly (this example is in fact too simplistic). This way the user is forced (without feeling restrained at all) to use semantic formatting instead of optical and once you are that far it's pretty easy to provide capability to introduce templates (aka stylesheets) that the user can't violate through individual formatting. How is a popup window that won't go away until you make a decision you didn't want to make and didn't know was coming, is "non-interrupting UI". As you said, that's restrictive. I don't want a program to not let me do stuff. If I want one green italics superscript letter in the middle of my 10000 word document - I should be able to do that. And I shouldn't have to define a style to do so. Yes, this is in a way a restriction for the user, but it is a choosable restriction - as soon as he uses the template, he can't violate the template, if he wants to do different stuff, he can start from scratch and create his own styles. A choosable restriction? I don't want some template to force me to do stuff. And I don't want to have to define a style if I was a single word to stand out. I really don't like anything about this idea. It sounds like a lot more work for the users, just so some techie geeks can say "ah - now the word is at peace. The code is pure." - It doesn't help the end user at all. It only helps coders and OCDers. I strongly believe that this kind of restriction actually empowers authors in business offices who don't want to bother about layout but would still be able to create layouted documents that pratically layout themselves as they type the content. It empowers no one. It takes away power. I guess if we deleted all but 10 fonts, that would free up designers from having to choose a font, right? What kind of 1984 double-speak is this? Empowerment through restriction. Freedom through slavery. Peace through war. So what do we do? Decide for one of them? Then which is the best, really? Perhaps we can create another cross-platform environment? ;-) Well, the best cross-platform environment is Ajax. Which is why web suites will replace hard drive based ones in the next 10 years (if not sooner). But of the ones you listed - XUL is obviously the best. It doesn't require a separate download - like GTK+ or X11 - it works natively on Linux, Unix, OS X, and Windows (unlike OOo, which needs X11 on Mac) - and it's easy to code for, (compare the number of extension on Firefox to the number of add-ons for OOo - and OOo has been around a lot longer than FF.) What do we need ODF for, then? Good question. I am not gun-hoe about ODF. I don't think it will change the world like many people on this list do. Let's say I'm realistically pessimistic about it. It's all about creating inter-program-suite standards, so that different programs actually can interact. Furthermore, database access is more or less standardized. All you need is a standard address database format. And it doesn't need to be supported by all applications, it just needs to be an agreement of Mozilla and OOo for a start. I'd like to see that - but I don't know if that will happen. OpenOffice.orgwas supposed to start working with Mozilla like 2 years ago. I've seen nothing happening. Of course, I'm not the most "in the know" person, so behind the scenes stuff could be happening. But I would think (a) an "open" source project would be more open about what's going on - so "behind the scenes" shouldn't exist and (b) after 2 years, some visible evidence would exist. Here's another reason for an email client to be a part of the same suite as I agree, but I'd say your approach isn't quite the right one. What you want is a propriatery approach...provide everything from one vendor and you will have no interchange problems and no redundancies. Right - a solution that works. A solution that is a real-world one. The only reason that every office suite on earth can open Word files is because they have to be able to in order to be to taken seriously. If OOo didn't open MSO files - I'd never touch it. And neither would most people. In fact, that was a big "selling point" for 2.0 "Better Microsoft Office Compatibility!". If you can't play nice with the big dog - you don't play at all. And that's what would make ODF the "universal" format. If one big office suite took over the marketplace and used only ODF or used ODF as default. Otherwise, it ain't happening. But, more on topic, if a single entity created an office suite with all the parts we talked about, and they all had the same fully cross-platform platform, that was easy to code for, truly self-containted and native to all major platforms (Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, Unix) and meet all those needs - it could take on Microsoft. It could change the world. It could take over. But it's not going to happen from a collection of pick-and-choose different vendors - which is why Linux will never replace Windows. Mac OS X might replace Windows - but Linux won't. Mac OS X is controlled - there is only one Mac OS X. There is only one place to get it. There is only one company - actually, only one man, that can change it. Steve Jobs is our benevolent dicatator, and what Jobs says is law. And guess what - that works. A million code jockeys in their garages banging out yet another distro - that will never work. A billion people reinventing the wheel on a daily basis - not going to work. You say OOo making a new mail client or whatever is reinventing the wheel. No, it's putting wheels on the car that is up on blocks at the moment. I've been reading these lists for 3 or 4 years now, and from day one I've seen users, coders, and business people alike asking for these same options. Back in the day, they asked for a database, and I saw apologist after apologist explain why that was the dumbest idea evar. Adding a database limits choice. It cripples the software. It's reinventing the wheel..... Those same people now brag about how OOo "finally" added a database. It's only a bad idea until it gets done - then it's the most obvious thing in the world. But the better solution is to establish standards and have people go with those standards Yes, and it would be really nice if everyone would just stop dropping bombs on each other and we could erase these stupid "national boundaries" and we could all just grab a Coke and go sing on a hill top somewhere, as one big happy family.... But meanwhile, back on planet earth, it would be really nice if there was a free, open source, truly cross-platfrom (aka no X11/GTK/QT BS) complete office suite that had a DTP, a email client, a PIM, a project manager, a calendar, a word processor, a presentation program, a spreedsheet, a database, ...... -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ http://www.whatisopenoffice.org/ http://www.chadwsmith.com/
