RE:[Model/view design for text editor][27/12/2002-19:54 GMT]

[[ � � N � � i � J�� ]�]

             



----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   [ةE�n� - ��T�i� - N�sT��]
----
Las Palmas, Islas Canarias [27/12/2002, 19:54 GMT]
----


[Mensaje original, 27/12/2002, 19:45]

Dierk Haasis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribi�:

DH> Hello Bruno!

DH> On Friday, December 27, 2002 at 3:16:48 PM you wrote:

>> I think many problems, such as editor preference, stem from comments
>> such as a and b above.  Who's definition of "natural" has been used to
>> qualify TB's usage?

DH> Not you and I. The sentences you quoted are marketing claims, not
DH> scientifically proven ones. Which I think is obvious and not to
DH> discuss 

>> We agree that the Agent editor has many shortcomings but also has a
>> number of strengths 

DH> Don't know why this paragraph was in, I never doubted Agent's
DH> abilities. Whenever someone comes up with "add news capabilities to
DH> TB" I strongly recommend Agent for that 

>> Alas, you're now confusing e-mail with text composition 

DH> No. Go back to my original message and you will see that I don't 

>>> So, you cannot just make up a paragraph by one new line, you need two 

>> Says who?  You can easily make a new paragraph in agent with a single
>> new line.  This is all in implementation 

DH> My sentence is an observation, not a god-given principle 

>>> Which has become standard even in business letters

>> Oh oh....  Someone bringing up "standards" while trying to make an
>> argument against the very use of them 

DH> Whatever you say here about me is

DH>          a) wrong
DH>          b) derogatory 

DH> I don't care if TB's editor uses any presumed standards, I want it to
DH> work properly under certain conditions. which it does, especially
DH> considering e-mail 

>> Must be because your viewer isn't smart enough to wrap those lines. :)

DH> No, look at the context of my rhetorical question and you'll easily
DH> see that it is certain mailers (like OE/OL, although not exclusively
DH> them and not under all circumstances) don't use LB/CR at the end of
DH> a line 

>> How often do I make a table in an email message?  Not very often 

DH> So, now we are down to, "I don't do it, so leave it" 

>> Don't take away my freedoms in using a program because you don't
>> think it's convenient for you. I don't find it very convenient
>> having to constantly ALT-L 

DH> You can use whatever you want. As I want to use what I want. What I
DH> don't want is a variety of programmes behaving alike; that is not the
DH> point of "choice". If someone wants HTML mail composition, use a
DH> mailer who can do it, not TB. You don't like the editor *and* are not
DH> comfortable with the reasons others give why they like it *and* don't
DH> want the advice of how you can achieve what you want, go use another
DH> mailer 

DH> That's why we need different [sic!] e-mail clients (this applies to
DH> every artefact) 

>> But that functionality does seem tied to the incorrect function.  It
>> would more logically be tied to auto-wrap (because that's what it's
>> doing) rather than auto-format 

DH> I am not in the least interested of which function should be labeled
DH> how. Yes, I'd like companies to try to make up useful labels, I'd like
DH> to have an easy way through a programme, car, cell phone, digital
DH> camera, computer 

DH> But that wasn't the point here, I just tried to show you (or whoever)
DH> how to achieve what you want 

>> I will point you back to your own comments regarding Agent.  Really,
>> follow along. :)  Composition can be presented in any way a software
>> author wants.  There are really no limits with this.  The relationship
>> between composition and final text can be as similar or as obscure as
>> a software author would like it to be 

DH> And Marck and I tried to argue why it is a good idea to see during
DH> composition how the end product looks like. ever heard the term
DH> "WYSIWYG"?

>>> It's a feature, yes. It's wrong, no. It doesn't fit your needs, maybe 

>> He, and others, including myself, are telling you is most definitely
>> does not suit our needs.  No maybe about it.  It is "wrong" only in
>> the sense that it does not follow normal conventions 
DH> <cut>
>>  I consider a shortcoming 

DH> Second first: Me not 

DH> Whatever you consider "normal conventions" ... others may not 
DH> Consider a thought experiment, a so-called "other world": If TB's
DH> editor had been there before Word and become more popular (through
DH> which ways ever), the normal convention would be TB's behaviour 

>> It's pretty clear already.  The bottom line is that everyone (I hope)
>> using the program has paid to do so.  It is completely within reason
>> to want a little bit more from your investment 

DH> Well, I paid for a programme "as is", not because it may in the future
DH> be what I want it to be 





---



________________________________________________
Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html