Randomthots wrote:
It would be stupid for OOo to try to do everything. It has to make a
decision about what it's trying to be, and stick to that.
Sure. But is that decision carved in stone? Regardless of customer
demand or desire? BTW, what exactly is the "it" making this decision?
it == OOo as in "the project"
On the one hand it's not "set in stone" in the sense that there's room
for maneuver, but within reason. Customer demand is only one factor. We
also have to consider the reality of limited resources and technological
trade-offs (e.g. bloat). And customers very rarely consider these
things. It's very easy to ask for the sun the moon and the stars, but we
have to make decisions about where we can and should spend our time.
Also consider the fact that in the case of volunteers, you (the
"customer"), have no right to tell them where to spend their spare time.
When dealing with a volunteer force, the concept of "customer" is a bit
blurry.
I wasn't really trying to say that OOo *should* be everything to
everybody. I wasn't even particularly talking about OOo, but rather
ODF/XML and how it relates to HTML.
You took a statement that "OOo should only cover xyz" to mean
"OpenDocument should only cover xyz". You took a division of
applications intended for OOo (office vs communiction) and applied it to
the file format. Saying that OOo should stick to being an office suite
has nothing to do with whether the OpenDocument file format should be
able to cover things that aren't part of office productivity.
Daniel, you implied about 5 times more than what I actually said. In the
process you almost completely missed my point.
I was bewildered that someone here would take the statement that OOo
should stick to being an office suite to mean that the OpenDocument
format shouldn't support other features. You grabbed that statement and
made it into something completely different.
Consider the evolution of html and what is being touted as the next step
in that process -- XHTML. Which is what? A flavor of XML. What's ODF? A
different flavor of XML. Common denominator? XML. Will there be a
convergence?
None of which has anything to do with your reference to whether OOo
should have communication tools or not.
it seems inevitable to me that html as we know it today will
eventually be deprecated and subsumed into a future iteration of ODF.
The W3C is currently considering this.
It would be trivial then to include browser capabilities in
OOo and arguably stupid not to do so.
OOo could act as a web browser today, as it can display HTML today. That
has nothing to do with the separation of office vs communication tools
you referred to.
You keep using the word "should" in these discussions. This word denotes
either a moral statement or an expression of preference, an opinion.
What the heck? Should doesn't imply either preference or moral
obligation. It can perfectly well be (as in the example of where OOo
should allocate resources) purely a result of balancing what users want
with technical merit and the realities of our resources.
You're making a ridiculous assertion out one word. Geez!
Saying "it's just an opinion" is ridiculous. Some things are actually
not just opinions. You can't say that the earth is flat and that my
position that it's round is just an opinion. Here I am talking about
allocation of resources. We should (yes, should) try to get the most
bang for the resources we have.
--
DEMAND __ __ __ http://opendocumentfellowship.org/petition/
| ||__)|__|\ | - Tell Microsoft to support it
|__|| |__| \|DOCUMENT - Sign the petition
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
