Alexandro Colorado wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:38:11 +0100, Randomthots
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nicu Buculei wrote:
You will often see people defining the "office suite" as something
including *all* the things included in Microsoft Office, probably
this is an effect of Microsoft's clever marketing.
The point isn't whether or not MSO has a component but WHY MSO has a
component. Outlook is a part of MSO because e-mail, calendaring, and
task management are a central set of office-oriented functions.
Frontpage is included because web-page creation is at least as
important in disseminating information as paper documents, pdf, or
presentations.
Rod
So on this new office suite of today where people do most of their work
on web applications, should we all do a Web version of OOo?
Just where in my post did you extract "this new office suite of today
where people do most of their work on web applications"? I was only
pointing out that the end product of content-creation is as likely to be
html as paper. I could point you to any number of web-sites where you
have the choice of viewing the content as html or downloading a pdf of
the exact same thing to print out. I've also seen a number of sites that
offer a Powerpoint, a pdf of the Powerpoint, and an html version of the
exact same slides. Since these are technically oriented sites, I *KNOW*
you've seen the same sort of thing.
In my mind the only real question is *how much* html support is
appropriate. Should it be an "export to html" button akin to the "export
to pdf"? Direct editing of html code with syntax checking? WSIWYG layout
like FrontPage, Dreamweaver, et al? Site management? I'm not sure where
that line should be, but wherever it is go that far, no further, and do
what you do as well as possible.
Should we
blog instead of producing documents?
Blog instead of producing documents? Why is it an either/or question? I
don't know a lot about blogging, but from what I've seen they seem like
fairly simple standard web-pages. Nothing fancy; surely within the
capabilities of OOo. I'll leave it to others to tell us if the mechanics
of posting such a thing could be a reasonable addition to OOo.
Should we have more compatibility
with our Cellphones and PDA and have bluetooth native support?
Now I think you're just being facetious. I've seen you post on very
technical subjects so I'm pretty sure you know that "bluetooth native
support" is meaningless in this context. While we're at it, lets throw
in native support for Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, Ethernet, ATM, Frame Relay, Token
Ring, FDDI, and 56K Dialup. I suppose you could include Telegraph,
Telex, and Semaphore flags as well. Bluetooth is a Physical and Data
Link layer networking technology that is totally transparent at the
Application level. It's even transparent to browsers, e-mail, and the
lowly ping command.
Rod
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
