[tdf-discuss] How can I add a unique identifier (UUID) of each paragraph
Hi, We have a scenario in which one document must be translated into many languages (23) and at the same time will be edited by many people simultaneously. To realize these requirements, each paragraph must have a unique identifier (UUID), which to be used in translating and merging of the document parts. Could this be implemented? Regards, Miro. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs
On Tue, 02 Nov 2010, Peter Rodwell wrote: I answered a posting from Ernst W. Winter: Yes sounds good. How did the city of Munich change 14,000 PC to OOo? with a somewhat cursory I don't know but the question piqued my interest. A few minutes' Googling came up with the answer: It didn't. Reports (e.g., at http://blog.worldlabel.com/2009/limux-where-the-munich-linux-revolution-is-today.html) show that only 80% of the city's 14,000 PCs will have been changed to open source by 2012 - that's EIGHT YEARS after the project was given the green light. Yes I know of it from the original German at Heise Online. It mentions also that many others have changed and are in the process of changing including the Federal Government. To be fair, Oo was only a small part of the changeover, which correct, the reason was also: Schießl explains that free software certainly Does not mean free as in free beer. Instead, open source offers programmers the advantage of improving the software and expanding additional applications without having to get permission from a specific company. This advantage also carries weight with other municipal governments. That is why the cities of Mannheim, Schwäbisch Hall and Treuchtlingen in Bavaria are moving at least partially to free software. involved an upfront cost of ?13 million for LiMux, a special version of Linux. The council says that's ?2 million MORE than it would have cost to upgrade from Windows NT4 to XP, but their point wasn't short-term financial saving -- they were more concerned about being tied to a single supplier. I do know many that have changed the OS including Security companies and if you look closer here in Eurpe Governments even pay for Open Source developement. I have been involved in the 90'ies with many changes of OS away from M$ and there are companies that state openly that they have already gone away from M$ and still have a small portion of that software. They are only waiting that they can replace that too. What are Corporations going to do if even Governments moving away from M$? Or even IBM are supporting Linux. While a city council can apparently afford to spend this time and taxpayer's money changing to open source, no corporate CFO would even consider it. Yes this sounds maybe silly, but then they don't have a noose around their neck with being tied to a company and can develope what they need for their own ends. OOo might have been a help and a step in making that move. Maybe I haven't explained myself as I got too exited to hear that the OOo is having a new start after Oracle took over Sun, you can see what happen when such companies take over. I believe in OpenSource and can see what happen, even if Corporations don't or can't see that. For me and others OpenSource has done more and achieved more then any Corporation. I still see it as THE future. Using Freebsd with some 20,00 apps and I can run Linux Binaries as well have a Virtualbox to run WIN as well having zfs filesytem, what could a Corporation want more to be independent? Sorr again, I just got carried away I will restrain myself. But I cross my fingers, wish good luck and all success to the developers of the new Offic Suite. I have pointed many friends in that direction adn business to what I know of. Keep up the good work you guys ... -- FreeBSD pioneers - every day a new installation Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow? BSD: Are you guys coming, or what? FreeBSD provides a Gates-free PC -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments the Document Foundation
Il 02/11/2010 20.57, Charles Marcus ha scritto: It might sound complicated, but once it is automated, it would 'just work'. Of course, the system that holds this information should be backed up religiously...;) This system may work, indeed. It would cover several important national laws in which digital agreements are equalized to written ones. Since *nobody* can check all laws of the world, it would be a good compromise btw legal safety and simplicity. It isn't the best solution, but something is always better than nothing. :) -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
Il 02/11/2010 19.13, animesh meher ha scritto: Has anyone considered the UI of IBM Symphony 3, its a step in the right direction . And now that most monitors have larger breath , we can use it to our advantage. Definitely, +1. Here are some screenshots taken from Symphony 3: http://www.lffl.org/2010/02/ibm-lotus-symphony-3-beta-2-ottima.html -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
Il 02/11/2010 22.58, Christoph Noack ha scritto: I would like to avoid the term ribbon in such discussions - if possible. I know that many people do have mixed feelings (sometimes very strong opinions) and sometimes require some more substantial knowledge what the Microsoft Fluent concept is about. Christoph, no offense intended, but those Renaissaince mock-ups were not *the* Ribbon, but they were really ribbon-like. And, as a 10 years OOo user, I usually don't talk about concepts (theory), but about productivity (reality). As long as I used the Ribbonized MS Office and IBM Symphony 3 (4 weeks both, for a programmed migration that didn't occurred), only IBM product didn't decreased my productivity. It was not perfect, but it was profitably usable for users different from newbies or MS Office adepts. -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments the Document Foundation
Hi, Von: Gianluca Turconi Gesendet: 03.11.10 08:40 Uhr Il 02/11/2010 20.57, Charles Marcus ha scritto: It might sound complicated, but once it is automated, it would 'just work'. Of course, the system that holds this information should be backed up religiously...;) This system may work, indeed. It would cover several important national laws in which digital agreements are equalized to written ones. Ianal - but for German (and most EU countries) law, digital agreements are only equivalent to written ones, if there is a trusted electronic signature in place. So a just click thru would not really establish something that is legally binding. regards, André -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] LibO document format: strict ODF or extended ODF?
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Gianluca Turconi m...@letturefantastiche.com wrote: Technically speaking, it may be true, because users always ask for new features, but when we're talking about open formats and document exchange, it's quite different. More often than not, the users are interested about features in the interface rather than features in the document format. I think it's a bit rarer that feature requests will require the document format to be extended. Either way, if there's a need to extend ODF for any reasons, maybe it's a good idea to keep a very visible page giving tips on compatibility with LibO's extended ODF, with code snippets that show how to parse only those extensions? -Thiago -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
Hey, Am 03.11.2010 09:16, schrieb shundr...@gmail.com: +4 on making Java optional. Personally, I prefer Python for writing extensions to programs as it usually results in smaller code and less legal uncertainty. Do we / Can we have the option of making LibO extensions in Python? Yes, it is still possible to write Extensions in Python :-) That is no problem. Regards Thomas -- ## Marketing deutschsprachiges Projekt ## http://de.libreOffice.org - www.LibreOffice.org ## Vorstand OpenOffice.org Deutschland e.V. ## Mitglieder willkommen: www.OOoDeV.org -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments the Document Foundation
2010/11/3 Andre Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net: Hi, Von: Gianluca Turconi Gesendet: 03.11.10 08:40 Uhr Il 02/11/2010 20.57, Charles Marcus ha scritto: It might sound complicated, but once it is automated, it would 'just work'. Of course, the system that holds this information should be backed up religiously...;) This system may work, indeed. It would cover several important national laws in which digital agreements are equalized to written ones. Ianal - but for German (and most EU countries) law, digital agreements are only equivalent to written ones, if there is a trusted electronic signature in place. So a just click thru would not really establish something that is legally binding. The same in Italy, i think. The framework on digital signatures was established in EU in 1999: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0093:en:HTML and i think is currently adopted in almost all UE countries national laws. bye, rob regards, André -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 01:08:46 +0100, Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+ooofut...@googlemail.com wrote: And I fully agree - just dropping java just for the sake of it is a very, very bad idea. Right, but being able to build with --disable-java (which doesn't work at the moment) should be a worthwhile goal in itself. And if we can replace a few wizards with C++ equivalents, that wouldn't hurt either... Sebastian -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments the Document Foundation
Il 03/11/2010 8.59, Andre Schnabel ha scritto: Ianal - but for German (and most EU countries) law, digital agreements are only equivalent to written ones, if there is a trusted electronic signature in place. So a just click thru would not really establish something that is legally binding. How a valid contractual will is expressed, it depends on the law governing the agreement and this can be: a) the law chosen by the parties in the agreement; b) the law of the country where the defendant lives; c) any other law expressed by the *private* international laws of the defendant's country; d) any other law with which the agreement has the stricter ties (see International Convention of Rome on contractual obligations, 1980 - and others). And this only for EU. Then, you have to consider that we aren't talking about a simple online transaction, but copyright laws are involved too. As long as we don't know where the real thing (the Foundation as legal entity) will be registered, we can only say that a solution *may* work. Regards, -- Gianluca Turconi -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 09:54 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 01:08:46 +0100, Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+ooofut...@googlemail.com wrote: And I fully agree - just dropping java just for the sake of it is a very, very bad idea. Right, but being able to build with --disable-java (which doesn't work at the moment) should be a worthwhile goal in itself. And if we can replace a few wizards with C++ equivalents, that wouldn't hurt either... Maybe we should convert the whole thing to Java :-) At least then it would run on any platform with a JVM eg cell phone technology as it moves up into the netbook and laptop spaces. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications A new approach to assessment for learning www.theINGOTs.org - 01827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
[tdf-discuss] Pretty up your name in the wiki stats
http://libreoffice.org/credits.html contains contributions to the TDF wiki. However it is only able to retrieve the wiki usernames. If you want to see you own full name there, you can enter it on this page: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Developers All that is being used now is the Wiki user name and the Real name for doing any mapping. Please don't change the columns as my parser relies on the columns being in this order :). When you add yourself, your full name is going to be displayed on the next stats update. Thanks, Sebastian P.S. Sorry for cross-posting but I want to reach all wiki contributors and not only developers. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Pretty up your name in the wiki stats
Hi Sebastian, Am 03.11.2010 10:49, schrieb Sebastian Spaeth: http://libreoffice.org/credits.html contains contributions to the TDF wiki. However it is only able to retrieve the wiki usernames. If you want to see you own full name there, you can enter it on this page: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Developers Rather than maintaining this additional page, that needs to be updated by hand, I would suggest to create hyperlinks behind the names of the wiki users in http://libreoffice.org/credits.html For example JamesWalker -- http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:JamesWalker What do you think? Stefan -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Accessibility (was Java dependency)
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 02:08 +, jonathon wrote: Is there a better alternative for Windows users? Roughly five years ago, IBM promised to deliver a better A11Y solution for Windows to OOo. AFAIK, that hasn't yet happened. Agreed - this will be the best solution in the end. Novell (with Oracle, and RedHat) initially wrote-out the Java dependency for a11y on Linux, in favour of a native atk+ bridge - which (for all its troubles) performs better, and is actually widely deployed (giving us lots of nice bug reports). Clearly we need the same for Mac and Windows. Writing such a native bridge is not -that- hard, and I'm not aware of a better sol'n than java for Mac - if anyone is interested in doing a bit of socially useful hacking, here they need to read: vcl/unx/gtk/a11y/* and: http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/Accessibility/cocoaAXIntro/cocoaAXintro.html And get in touch :-) Basically, you have to throw away _all_ of the existing code, and rewrite it from scratch, with i18n, l10n, and a11y as the core requirements. [Retrofitting a11y, i18n, or l10n always requires more time and effort that starting from the beginning, with no code at all.] Nah - it is not this bad; there is a reasonable internal a11y structure: it has several obvious weaknesses, but perhaps we can fix some of them if we are past the religion of eternal UNO API stability in this area. Something I hadn't thought of earlier, was what the Libre Colour palette looked like to a person that was colour blind. My colour blind palette only covers the websafe color palette. None of the colours are in that palette. Good thinking; it would be great to ping Christoph Noack on that presumably he has thought at least a bit about it - the monochrome outline is quite good I imagine. Anyhow - a really good write-up; if you want to get involved hacking on this, it'd be much appreciated. ATB, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Pretty up your name in the wiki stats
Hi there, On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 11:40 +0100, Stefan Weigel wrote: JamesWalker -- http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:JamesWalker What do you think? IMHO it is easier to maintain a single impersonal lookup table of wiki names to the various other names that we need, than to encourage everyone to create some pretty home page in the wiki ;-) [ perhaps a better use of time too ] ATB, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 09:27 +, Ian wrote: Maybe we should convert the whole thing to Java :-) Lol ;-) it seems the number of platforms with a compliant JVM is shrinking as we watch, making a bet on that technology in the current world seems crazy. At least then it would run on any platform with a JVM eg cell phone Sure any cell-phone with a vast amount of RAM, and a CPU twice as fast as those we have currently in desktops might give reasonable performance. I've seen OO.o running quite nicely on small ARM devices as native code; that would be my approach to mobile. And Sebastian is right - it would be a great goal to be able to build, and (for the most part) run without requiring Java - which is a distribution, and performance nightmare. While, of course, retaining the ability to write and distribute extensions in Java (where its cross-platform-ness makes this rather nice). But the real question is: who is eager to hack on --disable-java for the build ? :-) it should just be a matter of typing, and would help us attract new developers that don't have that fragile pre-requisite around. HTH, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
+5 too. What about supporting more languages for extensions instead? Lua seems interesting, there are other languages that couldbe supported too. I think LibO should be completely functional with all the features without the use of heavy dependencies like JVM. Also I think LibO should concentrate on being a lot more resource efficient without losing functionalities. This way slower machines will be able to run it like netbooks, mobile devices and specially those using ARM. Regards. On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 8:16 AM, shundr...@gmail.com shundr...@gmail.com wrote: +4 on making Java optional. Personally, I prefer Python for writing extensions to programs as it usually results in smaller code and less legal uncertainty. Do we / Can we have the option of making LibO extensions in Python? -Thiago On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 6:19 AM, jonathon toki.kant...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/03/2010 12:08 AM, Christian Lohmaier wrote: + Base HSQLDB backend That would mean: ship a different database with by default, SQLite could easily be added. would still need that backend otherwise you'd introduce a major incompatibility with previous versions. Doesn't Base have its own independent database engine. Something that is not part of OOo/LibO? If so, then a connector for it would be all that is required to retain the ability to use databases created for it. I don't really see a chance for base unless you want to duplicate base. Base as the front end could be rewritten. (Yes, I personally do like java, and I'd not create a code-heavy extension in any other language without a good reason) Keep the ability for extensions to be written in Java. jonathon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkzQ4toACgkQaC1raifmCuGH8ACeJIUHtBv5gUswkAkv/Z8Lmvam TpUAnijSa79TisTGN1if8p8aLoVza3AS =obwl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments the Document Foundation
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 17:28 +0100, Roberto Resoli wrote: Copyright Assignment is nor bad nor good, it's a compromise I do not see assignment in -any- way as a compromise; but as an un-necessary extreme. i am still waiting to see any reply also to Andrea's proposals in another thread [1] Oh - I guess I should reply there. I agree with Andrea, and I think that all this JCA stuff need a more pragmatic approach Honestly; the amount of doom mongering in this thread is staggering. Suddenly we somehow 'discovered' that all FLOSS licenses are un-enforceable, jurisdictionless, that no-one has really contributed anything, in any binding way to any eclectically owned FLOSS project[1], and that only mad people would ship that software :-) If the rational conclusion of these arguments is that the Linux Kernel, Mozilla, SAMBA, GNOME, KDE, and by extension -all- Linux distributions are fundamentally unsafe to ship - then we have a huge and un-fixable problem; but one that is by far beyond the scope of LibreOffice to fix. In particular OpenOffice already has this problem, since it includes big chunks of Mozilla - which has some form of mild certification of authenticity - but this only extends to the person doing the committing, not the code they commit [ from others ] ;-) ie. it is eclectically owned, and there is no paperwork, or click-through before contributing. So at this point, there are two options: * throw up arms in dismay, conclude nothing is 'safe', and wander around desparately trying to aggregate stronger rights to the entire codebase in various organisations [ which IMHO aggregates problems with it ]. Or: * follow the rest of the world including eg. IBM (who are not short of lawyers) who already ship eg. Mozilla, SAMBA and Linux without any of these apparently indispensible assignments ;-) HTH, Michael. [1] - eclectically owned projects are, by far, the vast majority of Free Software projects. -- michael.me...@novell.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
[tdf-discuss] OOXML support in LibreOffice
Hi, I wanted to add my support to the idea that LibreOffice should be standards compliant, where at all possible. This should IMO be interpreted broadly rather then narrowly. LibreOffice should be tightly wound around the ODF, but not married exclusively to it, would be another way I would put it. Well, I didn't want to muck up the SC list, but I did want to comment on what was being discussed there. Thanks Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Pretty up your name in the wiki stats
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Sebastian Spaeth sebast...@sspaeth.dewrote: On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 11:40:00 +0100, Stefan Weigel wrote: JamesWalker -- http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:JamesWalker That is a good idea and I implemented the links to personal pages. However, I still think real names are nice and I kept the table for transformations. I am working with Florian Effenberger on getting the real names directly from the Wiki installation though, so in the long-run this table might not be necessary. As for the favicons, could it be that your ISP inserts one? AFAIK there is none on the libreoffice.org installation, but I really don't know how it's set up and I don't want to fiddle with it :). Sebastian I better go and add some to page to make it nicer, now that everyone will be clicking on it to see what is on there. :) James Walker -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
[tdf-discuss] New UI - OOo compatability - What we are about?
HI, This email is prompted from reading a couple of the discussions going on, or just recently having gone on. This question of a new UI for LibreOffice for instance, is a good one to move into what I wanted to touch on. I believe the question itself is wrong - or to say it avoids looking at other ways to achieve the goals of those wanting to explore options for change. Basically what I want to say is this - I hope we find a way to construct our association, or collective efforts, such that it fosters growth in a lateral fashion, not just from the perspective of a single application. Do we really want to say that we, our efforts, are only to support this one application, LibreOffice? Do we not want to rather say that we are all collectively working to deliver the best possible tools for the document generation market? (ok, not the best wording..) This new organization, freed from the dominance of a single vendor, should not limit it's scope to only the this one artifact, brought from the old, LibreOffice. Rather, I hope, it should be capable of supporting new ideas, and new approaches. Certainly there are valid and proper, concerns with regards to compatibility with OO.o with regards to LibreOffice now and going forward. But they should not be an over riding concern when it comes to all our endeavors. Think about the situation back at OO.o with the Education project - How should we handle a situation such as this, where a group of active individuals, members of the larger group, decide to pursue a specialized derivative of the main application - would be shun them? What if a young designer, or an old one..lol.., proposes some radical ideas - and some young developers see the same vision and want to pursue it - will we have a way to help, and support them - or will we view it only as a loss from the perspective of work-hours on the libreOffice application? Thanks Drew -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] [FAQ] new entries (here: CA/JCA/SCA)
Hi Andrea, Firstly - sorry for a long delay before replying; believe it or not, in all the work of going live I forgot to subscribe to discuss, and so never saw your mail. Anyhow - after digging it out of the archive, let me set that right; you make some good points. On Sun, 2010-10-03 at 13:57 +0200, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 02/10/2010 Dr. Bernhard Dippold wrote: Q: What are copyright agreements (CA/JCA/SCA) with Oracle and why are they counterproductive to OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice and FOSS? So - in my view they are profoundly counter-productive, although they can have some benefits; I wrote a huge screed on the subject here: http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/copyright-assignment.html 1) Oracle will never be able to sue LibreOffice for patent violations, and this is true thanks to a copyright agreement. OOo 1.x-2.x was distributed under LGPL 2.1 and Sun could update the licence to LGPL 3, when OOo 3.x was released, only because of the copyright agreements in place. So - this is true; but -horribly- misleading IMHO. Yes it is certainly the case that re-licensing was only possible because they owned the rights: but then, if they had not owned the rights - they would necessarily have used a plus-license - which also allows re-licensing to future versions. So - I think this argument is extremely circular. True - in choosing the LGPLv3 they took advantage of the grandfathering clause, and simultaneously gave us an excellent explicit patent grant. IMHO an implicit grant is present in the LGPLv2 too - but - lets not split hairs here ;-) 2) Copyright Agreements/Assignments are commonplace in Free Software. Again - they are not that common-place. The vast majority of free-software projects I've worked with, and arguably the ones with the most dynamic communities - do not have these agreements in place. The Mozilla Foundation, if I recall correctly, does not require an explicit copyright assignment, You do recall correctly; They have a contributor agreement - but it is mostly useless, since it applies only to those committing the code, not the original copyright owners :-) but reserves the right to change the license at any time (MPL, Article 11). Right ! Of course both Oracle and IBM are clearly happy with the MPL, despite the originators having eclectic ownership - since they currently ship a -huge- chunk of this code inside OpenOffice.org in the form of Mozilla. This is one of the reasons that we ask people to use an LGPLv3+/MPL dual-license for their code contributions. Clearly if this situation was acceptable for OpenOffice.org, demanding something different of LibreOffice appears to have little legal basis. The main flaw with the (improving over time) Sun/Oracle Copyright Agreements/Assignments was that the entity in control was a company, not a democratic, independent, trustworthy foundation. Completely agreed. I have some sympathy for the FSF's assignment; but I still believe it substantially retards contribution, and is ulimately un-necessary. I believe that the Document Foundation, once formally established, will totally deserve my trust, and I think I won't have any regrets in sharing with the Document Foundation the copyright over my contributions, and this will also make the Document Foundation stronger. Well - I'm encouraged that you place that much trust in TDF :-) personally, I have no problem with you assigning your rights to TDF, or even the FSF [ this used to happen in the past voluntarily for GNOME - although almost no-one took up this option ]. B - Rewrite the answer (I use Jonathon's text as a basis) as: Some great suggestions here. C - Kindly ask the the Document Foundation's stakeholders, when they define the official policy, to avoid presenting Copyright Agreements/Assignments as inherently bad: very respectable Foundations promoting Free Software do use them, in the interest of their projects, and a trustworthy Foundation should not be afraid to ask for them. Again - I believe that aggregating this ownership right in the hands of (even) a well regulated, and governed non-profit is potentially risky. If the argument goes: they will never use it, so why not ? it makes me wonder why ? :-) If the argument is that there is some negotiation with Oracle that this makes possible - then, I have to wonder why Oracle is happy to ship millions of lines of Mozilla code (under the MPL) that they can never own as part of the product. So - in summary; I think this issue can get blown out of proportion. Currently - we have no way of stopping people assigning their copyright to whomever they wish - even Oracle :-) but we do ask for plus licensing, to remove this cannot change the license in future red herring. Anyhow - thanks for starting a great thread; sorry I missed the mail, would love to hear your riposte
Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
Le 2010-11-03 03:50, Gianluca Turconi a écrit : Il 02/11/2010 19.13, animesh meher ha scritto: Has anyone considered the UI of IBM Symphony 3, its a step in the right direction . And now that most monitors have larger breath , we can use it to our advantage. Definitely, +1. Here are some screenshots taken from Symphony 3: http://www.lffl.org/2010/02/ibm-lotus-symphony-3-beta-2-ottima.html I have mixed feelings on that. On one hand, if I absolutely have to have all my properties on screen then it makes a very good use of real estate. But there are many times I use the wide screen to my advantage by installing a second window to the right with either my source, internet references, other documents, etc. And in Calc/Excel, I would want an even wider sheet. So properties should either be displayed such as above or in its own window (like Styles and Navigation) that would be dockable. It would more or less follow the traditional OpenOffice / LibreOffice approach. One change I would do, however: if the box is docked, it should be displayed all the time; its content would change depending on whether it's paragraph properties, styles, etc. On the other hand, if it is a window, it should disappear when not needed to minimize screen clutter. Advantages of such a system ? - In Calc, the Properties could be displayed to the right or the bottom, to allow ideal use of real estate. - With dual screens, it is easy to put a window on a second screen. -- Michel Gagnon Montréal (Québec, Canada) -- http://mgagnon.net -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
[tdf-discuss] java / phone strategy ..
Hi Ian, On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 12:50 +, Ian wrote: Ok, perhaps a daft suggestion but the principle is that all cell phones will have a vast amount of RAM and fast CPUs in the next 2 to 3 years. A gig of RAM is normal now, it would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. Sure - but our existing performance problems will get no better by re-writing in Java :-) I think native code is the best approach. I've seen OO.o running quite nicely on small ARM devices as native code; that would be my approach to mobile. So why is there no strategy to get OOo on to these mobile devices? Or maybe there is ? Sure - improve performance and memory footprint - that work is underway, and beef up the ARM port. Beyond that - a new UI shell is required on top - and we have a mobile phone version. Ultimately - the techincal strategy is easy; the only problem is people to actually hack on doing it :-) are you volunteering ? if so, we can certainly help out with code pointers, review, encouragement, community building etc. All the best :-) Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
RE : Re: [steering-discuss] Version numbering of LibO
Hi, Top posting from my phone... This is not an easy answer to give. Both strategies have pros and cons. My advice would be to start where we are but alter the numbering scheme wildly: 3.3, 3.5 and then 4.0 instead of 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 like OOo. Charles. Le 3 nov. 2010, 12:03 PM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com a écrit : Hi there, On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 14:57 +0100, Andre Schnabel wrote: I'd rather continue OOo version number s... I think being similar enough to it is worthwhile. On the other hand, I think being slaved to Hamburg's development schedule is unfortunate overall. I'd like to release on a different cadence. But for now it is fine of course. And in future a major version bump - sounds reasonable. ATB, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgsteering-discuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.orgfor instructions on how to unsubscribe... -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] New Beta or RC soon?
HI alljust wondering what the PLAN is before final release of LO 3.3.0. Will there be a new beta 3 soon, or an RC version, as OOo did recently? All this discussion here is great, but seems not so much related to the imminent release coming up. If LO wants to get a good start, I would shoot for quality, even if it means being a little behind OOo on the actual release, but it should be reasonably soon. I cannot find any roadmap anywhere yet...I eagerly look forward to testing the next pre-release version on my linux and windows test machine. Thanks. Bob -- An effective way to deal with predators is to taste terrible. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] New Beta or RC soon?
Robert Boehm wrote: HI alljust wondering what the PLAN is before final release of LO 3.3.0. Hi Robert, we've branched off the 3.3 code line on Monday, expect new binaries soon. Cheers, -- Thorsten -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] New Beta or RC soon?
On 11/03/2010 09:33 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Robert Boehm wrote: HI alljust wondering what the PLAN is before final release of LO 3.3.0. Hi Robert, we've branched off the 3.3 code line on Monday, expect new binaries soon. Cheers, -- Thorsten Thank-you for that information...it helps me place where things areit's been a bit confusing...but I'm sure everything will stabilize and take a life of its own (as it seems to already have!) Bob -- Safety Tips for the Post-Nuclear Existence (1) Never use an elevator in a building that has been hit by a nuclear bomb; use the stairs. (2) When you're flying through the air, remember to roll when you hit the ground. (3) If you're on fire, avoid gasoline and other flammable materials. (4) Don't attempt communication with dead people; it will only lead to psychological problems. (5) Food will be scarce; you will have to scavenge. Learn to recognize foods that will be available after the bomb: mashed potatoes, shredded wheat, tossed salad, ground beef, etc. (6) Put your hand over your mouth when you sneeze; internal organs will be scarce in the post-nuclear age. (7) Try to be neat; fall only in designated piles. (8) Drive carefully in Heavy Fallout areas; people could be staggering illegally. (9) Nutritionally, hundred dollar bills are equal to ones, but more sanitary due to limited circulation. (10) Accumulate mannequins now; spare parts will be in short supply on D-Day. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] java / phone strategy ..
Hi all, On Nov 3, 2010, at 9:38 AM, Ian wrote: On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 09:09 -0400, Michael Meeks wrote: Hi Ian, I've seen OO.o running quite nicely on small ARM devices as native code; that would be my approach to mobile. So why is there no strategy to get OOo on to these mobile devices? Or maybe there is ? Sure - improve performance and memory footprint - that work is underway, and beef up the ARM port. Beyond that - a new UI shell is required on top - and we have a mobile phone version. That sounds good. I expect the iPad and upcoming Android tablets to become the dominant computing platform in developing countries--they are cheaper and make a simple upgrade path from the mobile phones that are the primary means of internet access in many places already (India, China, Africa, etc). There is no inertia from an installed base in this category--thus we can achieve first-mover advantage and define expectations for the next billion users. We don't have existing UIs (and brand names) to retrain users from, and we don't have an entrenched document format they will need to be compatible with. From a broad view of future success, tablets merit a great deal of attention on our part. As I mentioned elsewhere, a LibreOffice Touch for tablets would be huge. We'd outflank our main opponent, capture vast new markets and develop great momentum, and then with that increased strength, address the initial marketplace (of PC desktops and laptops) with a much larger arsenal at our disposal. Ultimately - the techincal strategy is easy; the only problem is people to actually hack on doing it :-) are you volunteering ? What will be much more effective is for me to devise a strategy that can pay several developers to work on the project. I'm out of date in hacking, but I know how we should be able to make money. I think that is just a better use of the resources I can provide. You're the General in my above, overly-military sounding metaphor. :) As a person who appreciates strategy myself, I agree with you on the importance of what you do. -Ben Benjamin Horst bho...@mac.com 646-464-2314 (Eastern) www.solidoffice.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: RE : Re: [steering-discuss] Version numbering of LibO
Hi, Am 03.11.2010 14:54, schrieb Charles-H. Schulz: Hi, Top posting from my phone... This is not an easy answer to give. Both strategies have pros and cons. My advice would be to start where we are but alter the numbering scheme wildly: 3.3, 3.5 and then 4.0 instead of 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 like OOo. Ever considered a ubuntu-like numbering? (My personal favorite) 10.10 (October 2010) 11.04 (April 2011) Stefan -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] java / phone strategy ..
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Benjamin Horst bho...@mac.com wrote: I expect the iPad and upcoming Android tablets to become the dominant computing platform in developing countries--they are cheaper and make a simple upgrade path from the mobile phones that are the primary means of internet access in many places already (India, China, Africa, etc). There is no inertia from an installed base in this category--thus we can achieve first-mover advantage and define expectations for the next billion users. We don't have existing UIs (and brand names) to retrain users from, and we don't have an entrenched document format they will need to be compatible with. The cheapest iPad is $500, and comparable tablets are priced along the same lines. There are cheap tablets more in the $99-$150 range, but they are underpowered compared to the iPad and Galaxy Tab. The iPad only has 512 MB of RAM, and we're talking about lesser hardware than that. Hardware gets better and prices drop as we move forward into the future, but if you want to be able to reach developing countries with a tablet version within the next year, then you need a slim build. From a broad view of future success, tablets merit a great deal of attention on our part. As I mentioned elsewhere, a LibreOffice Touch for tablets would be huge. We'd outflank our main opponent, capture vast new markets and develop great momentum, and then with that increased strength, address the initial marketplace (of PC desktops and laptops) with a much larger arsenal at our disposal. That sounds great. I think it could be a strong growth market, and help push not only OSS, LibreOffice, etc. but also the ODF format. However I think the key to that strategy is jumping out in front quickly. GoogleDocs can already by accessed via the web on tablets, and Microsoft has their online office offerings. LibreOffice would need a slim build with a tablet UI, and it would need one quickly. Is there developer bandwidth for such a project? I think this would be a good Google Summer of Code project that could get some funding and a new developer that way, but I'm not sure the work could be handled by a single developer over a summer. -- T. J. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] java / phone strategy ..
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM, T. J. Brumfield enderand...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Benjamin Horst bho...@mac.com wrote: From a broad view of future success, tablets merit a great deal of attention on our part. As I mentioned elsewhere, a LibreOffice Touch for tablets would be huge. We'd outflank our main opponent, capture vast new markets and develop great momentum, and then with that increased strength, address the initial marketplace (of PC desktops and laptops) with a much larger arsenal at our disposal. That sounds great. I think it could be a strong growth market, and help push not only OSS, LibreOffice, etc. but also the ODF format. However I think the key to that strategy is jumping out in front quickly. GoogleDocs can already by accessed via the web on tablets, and Microsoft has their online office offerings. LibreOffice would need a slim build with a tablet UI, and it would need one quickly. Is there developer bandwidth for such a project? I think this would be a good Google Summer of Code project that could get some funding and a new developer that way, but I'm not sure the work could be handled by a single developer over a summer. Nokia is already developing a mobile/tablet version of Koffice for Meamo/Meego. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: RE : Re: [steering-discuss] Version numbering of LibO
Hi all, On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Stefan Weigel stefan.wei...@bildungskreis.org wrote: Hi, Am 03.11.2010 14:54, schrieb Charles-H. Schulz: Hi, Top posting from my phone... This is not an easy answer to give. Both strategies have pros and cons. My advice would be to start where we are but alter the numbering scheme wildly: 3.3, 3.5 and then 4.0 instead of 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 like OOo. Ever considered a ubuntu-like numbering? (My personal favorite) 10.10 (October 2010) 11.04 (April 2011) I also like the ubuntu-like numbering. What about a mix of both? Using your examples: 3.3.10.10 3.5.11.04 Or maybe that is just too much for an average user? :) -- Jesús Corrius je...@softcatala.org Document Foundation founding member Skype: jcorrius | Twitter: @jcorrius -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
I think all this dicussion on radically altering the UI is unnecessary. Well I think it is okay to have such discussions. You can say that you like the current UI as it is, but this doesn't make new ideas superfluous. One of the advantages of LibreOffice/OOo over MS Office is that the interface is familiar and easy to grasp. I don't get that. It's familiar because its similar to MS Office? But why is the easiness an advantage over MS Office if it is similar? Then MS Office is easy, too. But the question is: Is the quite similar, but not too similar interface of OO BETTER than MS Office? I don't think so. Menus still provide a familiar and easy to use method of organizing a large number of features. +1, I don't like ribbon interfaces neither, because you don't see your tools vanish. Greying out things is the better option, as long as they don't take up much space on screen. Given the large number of features and complexity of office suites, one needs to consider both use cases. Most of the time we only need a small number of features and we want these conveniently located. Thankfully Lo/OOo handles this nicely today with keyboard shortcuts and toolbar icons. Nobody I know knows any shortcuts besides ctrl+c, ctrl+v. Toolbar icons are misleading, over the half of which are permanently visible I couldn't even tell you that I have used them before. Only the tool-tip provides you with the necessary information. And the laundry list of other features can be found in the drop-down menus. Which, again, are not very present to the user. Most radical refactorings I've seen try to clean up the interface, but then hide most of the features. Not hide. The point is that today we HAVE more screen space, but at the same time (new) icons are of little or no help to a user (as I already said). They're hard to grasp. The essential point is that we want to reduce the click count to a specific feature by not only placing icons into toolbars but other things, too, such as a colour selector, options, checkboxes, you name it. We're asking users to relearn a familiar interface, but why? Because the current one has lots of space for improvement. Honestly. The office suites have looked the same now for over ten years. We're practically standing still. You cannot tell me that you're completely satisfied with how it looks at the moment. Very simple tasks get tedious, because nobody uses things like styles. How often do you sit before a document and have to select text, change one attribute, select another paragraph, change the same attribute, ... Office suites are cluttered with an enormous amount of features. Do you know Origin? OO begins to look like it. And while other companies (yeah, Microsoft) at least try to bring improvements and while other technologies such as HTML and CSS are evolving rapidly we do... nothing. Seriously, our current office suite looks like assembler in the age of python. The Office 2007/2010 interface looks nice largely due to nice use of color, gradients, etc. The Lo/OOo interface looks antiquated largedly due to a flat pallete. No. It's so not about gradients and colours. True, they are not perfect, but who cares about that? The problem is that nobody really groups features: this one belongs to text attributes, here is the place I look if I want to embed a picture, here (and only here) are things concerning tables. We absolutely HAVE to make the user use the stylesheet stuff, and it must be so easy that they start to use it on one-paged documents. Honestly, if we kept the existing system of toolbars and drop-down menus, wouldn't most of our users be happy? No, because soon they'll die out because no new users will switch to OO. That sounds drastic, but imagine the following: at the moment the office suites are (mostly) compatible and comparable in both usage and interface. They will be very different five years from now, if OO does nothing about it. Either we attract more users because we have the SIMPLER interface or we adapt to the one MS is offering. The third option is keeping an outdated (but working) interface which satisfies its current users. If they had to re-learn a new system, might it just drive users to Microsoft's office suite (if you have to re-learn, you might as well learn the system used by the masses)? Not if there's nothing to learn. Modern software should be easy to grasp, at least the simple features. I truly believe the current approach works and should be maintained, but improved. There might be some slight tweaks in how the menus are organized. Toolbar defaults might be optimized. And the overall UI could be shined up with some gloss, new icons, gradients, spot color, etc. Again, no, it's not about colour, icons or whatever. That's eyecandy. If anything, I think we should be going the opposite direction. Instead of chasing the Ribbon of 2007/2010, I think we should embrace the abandoned Office 2003 UI even more. Perhaps provide an option
Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs
Quoting Graham Lauder: There is an extension which is pretty much a compulsory install on any OOo instance l use and it does what you ask here. http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/search/node/altsearch Thanks! It does indeed do what I want (and a lot more). Now if I can just figure out how to open that when I hit Ctrl-F instead of opening the standard Find Replace... P. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
Hi Gianluca! Am Mittwoch, den 03.11.2010, 09:01 +0100 schrieb Gianluca Turconi: And, as a 10 years OOo user, I usually don't talk about concepts (theory), but about productivity (reality). Cool! We are definitively on the same side. What counts is usability and productivity ... it is less about if people (dis)like a rectangular area. Cheers, Christoph -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs
Le 2010-11-03 17:11, Peter Rodwell a écrit : Quoting Graham Lauder: There is an extension which is pretty much a compulsory install on any OOo instance l use and it does what you ask here. http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/search/node/altsearch Thanks! It does indeed do what I want (and a lot more). Now if I can just figure out how to open that when I hit Ctrl-F instead of opening the standard Find Replace... P. Are you really satisfied with this extension? If yes, maybe we could submit is as feature request as a permanent part of the code. Graham, how well known is this extension? I wonder if it is well know in the power user camp. Maybe Michel could chime in on this one too. Marc -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Minutes of today's call online
Heh... Was on Preview mode. Sorry, it's fixed now. Best, Charles. Le Wed, 03 Nov 2010 22:11:50 +0100, André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net a écrit : Hi, Am 03.11.2010 21:52, schrieb Charles-H. Schulz: I've posted the minutes of our call today on the wiki, at the Steering Committee Meeting's page. Are you sure you actually *saved* them? - I don'T see any minutes at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Steering_Committee_Meetings regards, André -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Accessibility (was Java dependency)
Hi Jonathon! Am Mittwoch, den 03.11.2010, 06:47 -0400 schrieb Michael Meeks: On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 02:08 +, jonathon wrote: [... Important Accessibility Stuff ...] Maybe helpful, maybe not ... there has been a talk about the current A11Y status within OOo at the OOoCon this year. Maybe interesting for some guys ... OOo Accessibility - past, present and future Malte Timmermann, Bing Yin http://www.ooocon.org/index.php/ooocon/2010/paper/view/217 Something I hadn't thought of earlier, was what the Libre Colour palette looked like to a person that was colour blind. My colour blind palette only covers the websafe color palette. None of the colours are in that palette. Good thinking; it would be great to ping Christoph Noack on that presumably he has thought at least a bit about it - the monochrome outline is quite good I imagine. Pong! :-) Good points! Jonathan, a question to get a better understanding. With Libre Colour palette, do you mean a) the default color palette within LibreOffice, or b) the LibreOffice Branding Colors [1] (not shipped with LibO)? If the latter, then you are right - when presenting the first beta version of the colors, I skipped some color testing as mentioned here [2]. And as Michael already mentioned, we currently go for high luminance contrast which avoids problems right from the start (although people sometimes find it a bit boring). We really don't perform that bad - as you can see here [3]. It might even require some minutes rendering time - it is a Colorblind Filter I use from time to time. On the right side, there will be a control box that lets you chose different . Currently we refine the colors to make it easier to work with. Some people already added their ideas at [4]. From the branding perspective, it is just difficult to use standard palettes (branding means usually being rather unique). Thus, I plan to do some basic simulation (e.g. with The Gimp) before we finalize the colors. This helps a bit, but ... ... from experience it is known that we have to be careful with colors - not only color blindness, but also cultural differences in what color means to people. However, did that address some of your concerns? I'm happy to hear your opinion and - maybe - some proposals how we can get further improvements. Especially since the colors should be finalized as soon as possible (other related items are stalled at the moment). Thanks! Bye, Christoph [1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing/Branding#Color_Table [2] http://luxate.blogspot.com/2010/10/united-colors-of-liberty.html [3] http://colorfilter.wickline.org/?a=1;r=;l=0;j=1;u=www.documentfoundation.org;t=p [4] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing/Ideas#Refined_LibreOffice_Branding_Colors -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Old Bugs
On 2010-11-03 17:11, Peter Rodwell wrote: Quoting Graham Lauder: There is an extension which is pretty much a compulsory install on any OOo instance l use and it does what you ask here. http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/search/node/altsearch Thanks! It does indeed do what I want (and a lot more). Now if I can just figure out how to open that when I hit Ctrl-F instead of opening the standard Find Replace... P. Good Morning, Good Day, or Good Evening: To use Ctrl F as the shortcut for 'Alternate dialog Find Replace for Writer', do the following: Open 'Alternate dialog Find Replace for Writer' Click on 'Batch ', the Batch Manager Click on 'Key Shortcuts' In the top dropdown box, select 'Altsearch - dialog'. At the bottom of the dialog, assign the new shortcut: Ctrl F. Hope this helps. It does work for me Tom -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Old Bugs
On Thursday 04 Nov 2010 10:33:43 Marc Paré wrote: Le 2010-11-03 17:11, Peter Rodwell a écrit : Quoting Graham Lauder: There is an extension which is pretty much a compulsory install on any OOo instance l use and it does what you ask here. http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/search/node/altsearch Thanks! It does indeed do what I want (and a lot more). Now if I can just figure out how to open that when I hit Ctrl-F instead of opening the standard Find Replace... P. Are you really satisfied with this extension? If yes, maybe we could submit is as feature request as a permanent part of the code I'm never without it, it's brilliant. Standard install with all my clients that are heavy writer users. Graham, how well known is this extension? I wonder if it is well know in the power user camp. Maybe Michel could chime in on this one too. 100,000+ downloads this year, so it's reasonably well known amongst Writer power users l suspect, certainly my clients like it a lot and the template changer as well... Marc Cheers GL -- Graham Lauder, OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ OpenOffice.org Migration and training Consultant. INGOTs Assessor Trainer (International Grades in Open Technologies) -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
On 2010-11-03, Thomas Krumbein thomas.krumb...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Am 03.11.2010 09:16, schrieb shundr...@gmail.com: +4 on making Java optional. Personally, I prefer Python for writing extensions to programs as it usually results in smaller code and less legal uncertainty. Do we / Can we have the option of making LibO extensions in Python? Yes, it is still possible to write Extensions in Python :-) That is no problem. Then start porting all the java extensions to python extensions before talking about removing java dependency. Even if the task half complete, some features can still be benefit by not loading the JVM. Maybe create a EasyHack item for porting java extension to python extension. Porting is more like code cleanup except more typing... -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
