Hi Charles,
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
[...] but this would be different from
having an office suite with "modular" applications (with less common
dependencies, etc.). Am I getting this right or am I making things too
complex?
personally I think this is a myth in office modularization. Sure users
wants an office with a small
footprint. Also many want only the applications they are interested in.
But at the same time they
want
- Their shapes in calc behave exactly the same as shapes in impress
- Their formulas in writer behave exactly the same as formulas in calc
- Their text in impress behave exactly the same way as text in writer
So the common feature set of all applications from my personal
experience is already most
of the functionality there is.
For me the perfect "modularization" would mean that an application is
just a set of configuration
files that use a set of "office building blocks" and define the user
interface.
Beside that, the plan from Kay&all makes sense for me, esp. starting at
the build level.
Just my 2c,
Christian
PS: I also like to propose a theme song for this epic endeavor :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXY_3kXRpWA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
