On Friday 05 November 2010 22:19, Marc Paré wrote: > Le 2010-11-05 16:04, Nino Novak a écrit : > > On Friday 05 November 2010 20:27, Marc Paré wrote: > >> I would not go to Wiki-markup. > > > > Please read Manuals reply. > > > > It's not about supposed potential users but actual contributors. > > They predominantly seem to switch off the editor. > > > > So the editor should be disabled until a fixed version is > > found/installed. > > > > Nino > > EOD for me > > Thanks Nino. Don't take the rest of the following as an angry retort > but more of a discussion more on the philosophy behind what I > consider the use of WYSIWYG editors.
I'll give it a try ;) > I don't have a problem with turning off the editor if it is not > working. But would like to have the option of using it if this is > possible at all ... pretty please. BTW, I am probably the one who > turned the editor on in Manuel stats. LOL > > Also BTW, thanks for Manuel for all of his hard work. It is > appreciated. > > I do all of my contributions with WYSIWYG editors wherever I > participate. I find that I can format more efficiently and have more > time and leave the formatting coding up to the editor. This is not to > say that I could not do it or stop contributing to the project, but > it would certainly slow down the process. while I see this, please see also that I'm scared of the problems a broken editor produces, i.e. additional work and possible data loss. Therefore, it's a question of balancing arguments. > I find it a little strange that we are debating about the virtues of > using WYSIWYG editors while at the same time advocating a suite > built on the principles of WYSIWYG. It's not about the principles of WYSIWYG but about weighting pros and cons of a /broken/ editor. No one would complain if the editor wouldn't destroy text. > How ironic, when you think that > the majority of people would definitely use the LibO suite and not > return to the CP/M days of coding all aspects of formatting to write > an article .. Wordstar these days would clearly not sell. see above. Nobody talks about principles, it's about working efficiency. > If we are looking to increasing the amount of membership > participation on the project, then, presumably they are here because > they believe in the LibO suite and would like to contribute. By > providing these new members a means by which to participate that > includes subscribing to a text editor that requires an output better > suited to a WYSIWYG editor is self-defeating. Again, read Manuel's mail. We should not argue about potential but actual contributors. > Having more members participate will make for a better and more > popular vibrant project. For me, nothing is more de-motivating than if you're using tools that erase your contributions silently. Remember: I'm not talking about principles but concrete problems. Nino -- E-mail to website+h...@libreoffice.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/website/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
