On 11/2/12, Ian Lynch <ianrly...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2 November 2012 08:40, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On 01/11/2012 robert_weir wrote: >> >>> We (IBM) have consulted with customers, internal users, other IBM >>> product >>> teams, on what our (IBM's) development priorities should be for the next >>> AOO release. Obviously, we're not the only ones with priorities or >>> interests or opinions. We don't make AOO decisions by ourselves. But >>> we >>> want to be transparent about what our own priorities are >>> >> >> Thank you for sharing. They are all good and needed contributions and >> they >> cover many of the main results from the Google Moderator user survey. >> >> There are still missing things that I've seen requested and that I would >> personally like to see in the product (a non-exhaustive list would >> include: >> better OOXML support, full or enhanced ODF 1.2 support, > > > I think the best filters possible are the highest priority. It is difficult > to use AOO with government documents because mostly they have complex table > structures for gathering data in docx format. This more than anything will > prevent take up.
This problem is more on the design and paper paradigm. Having a digitalization of a paper-form forms, we use tables to design as opposed as to hold tabular data. A document design should be done with a DTP program something that Writer is not the optimal software for it. Frame-based software is the ideal for design documents. One simple example is the lack of 'rotate' an image in Writer, while Draw has it. Here we have two scenarios: 1) Import such features into writer. 2) Improve the integration of draw and writer. Draw layers could easily be taken as a "template" for writer to fill in around Draw designs. > > better defaults, better integration with the Extensions and Templates sites >> or in general better visibility for the additional resources, a refreshed >> visual identity not only in the interface...), and indeed it will be good >> to start collecting priorities on the wiki and assess feasibility of the >> underlying development. >> >> And then of course there's the community side: we are now able to engage >> localization volunteers but there is still work to do to be able to >> engage >> unaffiliated developers, so we might take that into consideration when >> discussing the new features. >> >> releasing is PMC decision, not an IBM one. But we think that this work >>> could be completed and tested for a release in the March/April 2013 >>> time-frame. And the scope of the release might be significant enough to >>> warrant a "4.0" designation. >>> >> >> Seems like this would be a good plan. Let's make it real! >> > > On that timescale we really need to get going if we are to have a > competition for branding for 4.0. > > >> >> Regards, >> Andrea. >> > > -- > Ian > > Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) > > www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 > > The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, > Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and > Wales. > -- Alexandro Colorado PPMC Apache OpenOffice http://es.openoffice.org
