How are we going to convince people without a background in computer science
to try OOo, if at the same time we dismiss them as «Joe Sixpack[s]» ? This
is not merely a question of careless terminology, but of one's attitude
toward others....

Henri

2007/5/27, jonathon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

Mathias Bauer wrote:

>> into their own container, with the current implementation of
>> OOo.In the long term, this would be a more secure option.
> It's easy. The IDE has an export function that can create Basic
> libraries or Basic extensions with some mouse clicks. Of course the
> macros in the extension are not more "safe" than those in the document,
> but the separation perhaps makes it more clear and helps users to
> understand.

What I was thinking of was a save function/option that
created some_document_name.odf and
some_document_name.macros.  some_document_name.macro
contains only the macros that are used with the document.

I'm thinking of Joe Sixpack here, who doesn't know what an
IDE is, much less how to use it.

>> format, converting it to ODF in the process.   With your
>> proposal that macro could not run.
> It could be run either as part of an extension or if the macro in the
> document is digitally signed.

A digitally signed macro can change the content of the
document.  A macro that has not been digitally signed can
not change the content.

That might work.

> think different. I think you know that one of the most popular OOo
> macros is still deployed as a document - OOoDic.

So is OOoFont.

> out it shows that the demand for document macros is still there.

Both of those macros ( OOoDic & OOoFont ) provide required
functionality for OOo. [FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised to see
OOo_Install_Grammar_Checking as well. This is a macro that
installs and configures Grammar Checkers.]

The issue is whether such tools should be hard coded into
OOo, or soft-codes with macros.

Other "special instances" would be prototyping vertical
market applications for OOo.

> The unbundling wouldn't cause a lot of coding in OOo. And why should it
> require changes in ODF? Macros are not part of ODF.

Somewhere in the ODF specifications is a note on how to
handle macros. Unbundling macros from the document would
require the specifications to change to exclude the
possibility of macros being part of the document.


xan

jonathon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




--
老朽
頓首

M Henri Day, PhD, MD
Stadshagsvägen 22, 5tr
S-112 50 Stockholm
SUÈDE

Tel : +46 8 6183098
Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skype/Google Talk : mhenriday
http://mhenriday.googlepages.com
http://mhenriday.blogspot.com/

Reply via email to