On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 09:14 +0200, Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote: > Ian, > > you and the other guys had good points. Let's categorize them somehow. IMHO: > > - We need to work on the channels to get OOo. These can be APT > compliant, Java Web Start, Win-Get (APT for Windows), CDs or similar.
UK government now has a policy to make files available as pdf with links to Acrobat reader. If we could persuade governments to make files available in odf with a link to OOo it would make a massive difference. This would be easier with a smaller download size but it might be worth having a go anyway. We might be able to enlist the help of other Open Source groups - OSC is currently quite active in political lobbying in the UK, for example over the BBC i-player. > - We need to work on the package structure. It is not optimal regarding > the distribution of the packages content and the underlying concepts > (just install an OOo on Windows while de-selecting everything, you would > still get about 200mb copied to your disk without any usable > functionality ;-). Stephan Bergmann and Ingo Schmidt are currently > working on this, one part being the separation of the URE (see > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ODF_Toolkit/Efforts/OOo_without_URE). Presumably, among other things this will lead to the possibility of upgrades directly from the net rather than having to install a complete package? > - We need to improve the OOo software architecture, to reduce functional > redundancy etc. heading for less code with more features :-) First step > for this is to actually get an understanding what it consists of ... see > again > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Analysis/Source_Code_Inventory > (don't know why the page was blank for you, just reloaded it and looked > fine). Works fine now. Not sure what went wrong before. Less is definitely better ;-) > - We need to expand into new technologies. Be it Ajax, Flash, > Silverlight, JavaFX or similar. To support dynamic access to OOo > respectively ODF. > > - We need to ensure that OOo keeps appealing, impressions and handling > are very important. > > - We need to attract more contributors. Companies, private people etc. > This seems to be hard but very promising ... > > - And, IMHO this wouldn't be enough, we also should take care of easy > distribution of ODF, just being used as mail attachments doesn't seem > sufficient ... See opening comment. We need a compact and easy to get/install odf reader that causes no objections to downloading and installing. One of the things against OOo in that role is its seen as an office suite. So perhaps a version of OOo with a "dumb" user interface that doesn't look like an office app but looks more like Acrobat reader and can export pdf files. Then all that is needed is the odf file because anyone can then create the pdf version if they need it. Then a button you click that can, if you know about it, make it into regular OOo ;-). Its silly but the fact that its a whole office suite puts people off. "I don't want a whole office suite just to read a file" - ok give them what they want. Ian -- New QCA Accredited IT Qualifications www.theINGOTs.org You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
