Hi Regina,
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 11:18 +0100, Regina Henschel wrote:
> I do not understand, why SolidMarkHandles should be removed. It works as
> it should.
Heh :-)
> If it is set to TRUE, you get the 3D-Handles, and if it is
> set to FALSE, you get the flat handles. It is the same setting as the
> icon "Simple Handles" (= .uno:HandlesDraft) in Draw. You have no UI for
> it in Writer, but need a macro to change it. But why removing it?
The feature is of highly dubious usefulness; the UI advise list seemed
to agree that the feature is not useful, it drags around yet-another
big, complicated image, it makes that image harder to edit, chop up and
improve (which we want to do for handles) by requiring us to do
everything at least twice: once for 'simple' and once for 'solid'.
Removing pointless features that clutter the code making it harder to
maintain & add cruft to the UI is (I think) just a good thing to do.
So - given the extreme unlikeliness of anyone knowing or caring about
this feature, and the new 3.5 handles (which are semi-transparent)
making it rather un-necessary - I'm looking at pushing Tim's full
removal patch shortly.
Of course - since it is a string property - we should be able to grep
all-known binary extensions to see if anyone, anywhere ever used this
property; my strong 99.9% suspicion is not ;-) Furthermore, if it is not
there, and their code handles exceptions cleanly, all should be well
too.
Ideally we'd have a repository of proprietary binary (and better
open-source) extensions somewhere so we can check what they actually use
of our vast exposed feature set.
All the best,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
