On 09/06/2013 at 19:31, Rich Lewis rlew...@gmail.com wrote:
When they introduced Internet Explorer 10 they broke X number of websites
(including our gradebook website).
These websites were broken in the first place. Just stick to web standards and
you won't have any problems with IE10.
The
On 6/8/13 11:14 AM, Jay Lozier wrote:
I like the concept that are core features combined with extensions/plugins
to add little used features. Also, extensions/plugins would allow the dev
team to focus on the core code and not run done every minor feature that
is wanted. And the
This is very true. The only way to ensure compatibility is if you control all
the extensions, which would be a nightmare.
Sticking with the paradigm of upgrading software breaks a lot of uncontrolled
X, Microsoft did this on a larger scale. When they introduced Internet
Explorer 10 they
Hi :)
There could be a core group of Extensions/Add-ons that are maintained as part
of the program. Official add-ons. Then a bunch of 3rd party or experimental
ones. Encourage all to be made as OpenSource so that if/when the original
maintainer vanishes then others could take over.
Regards
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 11:50:17AM +1200, Steve Edmonds wrote:
On 2013-06-08 10:10, Ken Springer wrote:
On 6/7/13 3:41 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
snip
I too wouldn't touch Kingsoft with a barge pole. I want to
steer towards using formats that will be
around and usable in a few years time.
On 6/9/13 2:07 PM, Tom Davies wrote:
Hi:)
There could be a core group of Extensions/Add-ons that are maintained as part
of the program. Official add-ons. Then a bunch of 3rd party or experimental
ones. Encourage all to be made as OpenSource so that if/when the original
maintainer vanishes
Hi :)
Hmmm, i was thinking of the official ones covering certain fairly commonly used
functionality and the 3rd party ones tending to go for interesting oddities.
But if a 3rd party one was directly competing with an official one and doing it
better then it would be great to have some
On 6/9/13 5:36 PM, Tom Davies wrote:
Hi :)
Hmmm, i was thinking of the official ones covering certain fairly commonly used
functionality and the 3rd party ones tending to go for interesting oddities.
But if a 3rd party one was directly competing with an official one and doing it
better then
no longer conflict with document panes.
I.e. split panes for a document window.
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more:
Hi :)
ODF is implemented the way it's documented as an ISO standard. A lot of
programs use the same implementation. According to devs it's fairly easy to
write something that can read it.
Where programs have variations on their implementation those tend to be written
up as bug-reports (and
On 2013-06-08 10:10, Ken Springer wrote:
On 6/7/13 3:41 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
snip
I too wouldn't touch Kingsoft with a barge pole. I want to steer
towards using formats that will be
around and usable in a few years time. I want to be able to open
documents maybe 10-20 years from now
On 08/06/2013 at 00:10, Ken Springer snowsh...@q.com wrote:
I've not used Word regularly since 2003, so I can't say whether
the menu interface that appears when you hide the ribbon is as
functional as its predecessors.
There is no menu interface. You simply hide content of ribbons, leaving
On 6/7/13 3:41 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
snip
I too wouldn't touch Kingsoft with a barge pole. I want to steer towards using
formats that will be
around and usable in a few years time. I want to be able to open
documents maybe 10-20 years from now without having to struggle against
malware and
Virgil Arrington:
This has been fascinating reading all of the opinions about user
interfaces and the dreaded ribbon. I've not found *anyone* who actually
likes the ribbon. I agree with several of you who have observed that the
ribbon makes using styles much harder. And, since it's harder to
14 matches
Mail list logo
