Michael Meeks wrote:
Hi Jurgen,
On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 10:12 +0200, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
whatever we will use in the future it will be important that we will
have a GUI editor to make the design of new dialogs much more easier
than today.
Yep; absolutely - it's in the spec. and we
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 13:15 +0200, Christian Lippka wrote:
Michael Meeks wrote:
There was some resistance to nominating this for 3.0 because ChristianL
wanted to re-do the translation work to use Java Properties instead of
the new transex tool we wrote that translated complete XML
Hi Jurgen,
On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 10:12 +0200, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
whatever we will use in the future it will be important that we will
have a GUI editor to make the design of new dialogs much more easier
than today.
Yep; absolutely - it's in the spec. and we have a
Hi Michael,
On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 10:12 +0200, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
whatever we will use in the future it will be important that we will
have a GUI editor to make the design of new dialogs much more easier
than today.
Yep; absolutely - it's in the spec. and we have a
Stephan Bergmann writes:
Just kidding, you folks, I assume.
I understand that reverting this is not an option. With this new
breakage however, there is no obvious and simple place to share the
latest development efforts and to get others involved. These are in a
GIT archive based on
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
Hi Michael,
Michael Meeks wrote:
Hi Kay,
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 14:29 +0200, Kay Ramme wrote:
Is there somewhere some more docu regarding the XML etc., e.g what
are the dialogs you plan to convert first ... or is it all use the
source Luke?
Not
Hi Eric,
eric.bachard wrote:
FYI, after what I have seen during GoOOCon (Prague), I decided to test
layoutdialogs cws on Mac OS X and so far it looks promising. (only
tested zoom and another dialog box though )
Good to hear, so it seems I have to take a look myself as well :-)
The other
Hi Kay,
What I hear is, that many users and developers seem to be unsatisfied
with OOo's GUI respectively with it's progress, some even seem to be
disappointed with OOo 3 because of that. What I see is, that others
(XAML, XUL, ...) are in principal heading for a scalable approach (not
pixel
Hi Jörg,
Jörg Wartenberg wrote:
For me an other aspect of the user interface is much much more
important, consistency of the UI over the whole office and with the
operating system.
Some of which is simpler while other parts are more difficult, but lets
see ...
If you look today on the user
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Michael Meeks writes:
So - in summary; it's going quite nicely - though Jan is away for a
bit: and wrt. helping out - perhaps the most useful thing would be to
unwind the UNO*3.0* nightmare in the CWS so that toolkit/workben/layout
's 'test' binary will run
Hi Kay,
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 11:42 +0200, Kay Ramme wrote:
does anybody know what the state and plans regarding the VCL UI Rework
(see http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/VCL_UI_Rework) project
are? As we need to do something to improve our GUI, this seems to be a
good step into the
Michael Meeks wrote:
There was some resistance to nominating this for 3.0 because ChristianL
wanted to re-do the translation work to use Java Properties instead of
the new transex tool we wrote that translated complete XML files
per-lang.
This is bogus, I discussed with Jan that in my
There was some resistance to nominating this for 3.0 because ChristianL
wanted to re-do the translation work to use Java Properties instead of
the new transex tool we wrote that translated complete XML files
per-lang.
This is bogus, I discussed with Jan that in my opinion it is a
Hi Kay,
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg a écrit :
Hi,
does anybody know what the state and plans regarding the VCL UI Rework (see http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/VCL_UI_Rework) project
are? As we need to do something to improve our GUI, this seems to be a good step into the right
14 matches
Mail list logo
