To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=57408
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 9 12:14:37 -0800 2006 ------- OK, so make the re-assignment. It makes no difference whether this is a stock feature or whether it is something that a user, or law firm IT person, can add to the context menu. So, by all means, make whatever re-assignment may be necessary to have the points here set out in a form that is discussable by the developer/programmers. Just note that there seems to be an underlying capability that also needs to be looked at, to whit: in a "small capped" citation, the first small-capped character also needs to be an Initial Cap. So, the resulting syntax has to be as follows to be acceptable by a court or government agency: <"Capitalized" first character><"small letter" height capitalized character> <"small letter" height capitalized character> <"small letter" height capitalized character><"small letter" height capitalized character>,...etc. In other words, in WordPerfect, for example, the user steps in accomplishing the necessary legal formatting are as follows: 1. Highlight the word to be formatted; 2. Choose Initial caps from the Edit Menu; 3. Choose Small caps from the Edit menu (to make ALL characters, INCLUDING the Initial Cap, so-called "small caps.") In that regard, it is not "absolutely" necessary to include the Initial cap and small cap commands on the context menu per se (although this would really speed up the procedure). The bottom line is that lawyers and legal secretaries need to be able, in a multi-word legal treatise title (citation of authority) to be able to preserve the initial cap in each word of the title and have all characters in each word of the title nevertheless be "small capped." Sorry, but this is a significant impediment to using OOo in legal writing and in government technical legal writing. Second, the model that you want to emulate is WordPerfect and NOT MSWord. Attorneys do not typically use MSWord inasmuch as it is NOT a text stream, SGML technology that results in GPO, press ready copy for printing. That is why the Department of Justice and other government agencies still use WordPerfect and NOT MSWord. Federal judges have been bouncing back MSWord docs because the work product does not comply with GPO printing specs as reflected in local court federal rules. MSWord is a business word processor. It works poorly as a legal word processor. For more information regarding the difference in the text stream and "fields and records" technologies employed respectively by WordPerfect and MSWord/OOo, see this thread at this linnk to material in the OOo Forums: http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=25712&highlight= This thread also includes some discussion on how legal writing requirements differ from other forms of technical writing. Since most computer folk are laymen when it comes to technical legal writing, just as most law folk are laymen when it comes to computer programming, it might be useful for someone on the development team to get up to speed on what is actually required in legal writing end product performance out at the user desktops. As I write this, there is NO substitute for WordPerfect (Lawyers are NOT going to struggle with something like LaTex -- law is a high speed, "pressure" profession; a word processor is only a mere tool, like a wheelbarrow is to a gardener; LaTex and solutions like LaTex can't ever be usable in a production work environment like a law practice). All well and good; BUT, WordPerfect, as a result of Microsoft's illegal tying, under the antitrust laws of the U.S. of MSWord to PC's during 1995 and 1996, not only dropped WordPerfect's use share from about 90% to somewhere down around 5%, but also seems to have doomed WordPerfect to a perpetual state of financial instability. There is a HUGE hole in the market here (particularly among the legal profession) for OOo to fill by adding some discrete features that allow it -- whether through some individual customization capabilities or stock features -- to perform according to legal writing tech specs and standards. The goal here is to get OOo up and ready for use in law and government offices for technical legal writing. When that is done, you watch: OOo will take off like a rocket in popularity, and you will have a much easier time in getting government agencies and law firms and organizations (such as the American Bar Association) to adopt it as an "acceptable" alternative. All we can do, obviously, is simply alert you guys to items we notice as we test use OOo. Right now, we still use WordPerfect, as do most lawyers; but we are hoping the legal capability will be developed for OOo so that the financial viccisitudes of WordPerfect, as well as its inability, for patent and copyright reasons, to port to Linux, will become irrelevant. "Most" attorneys would most likely be eager to switch to OOo, if for no other reason than the XML standardization of document formats, if they could. But legal materials, particularly legal briefs, have to be printed for local courthouses on commercial presses; so the commercial printing press requitements capabilities will remain for a long time to come. Best regards, Nuncus --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
