Laurent Godard schrieb: >> One goal would be to use a multi-path for user/wordbook and >> share/wordbook. Another would be to resolve the conflict of >> user-dictionaries and downloadable dictionaries in user/wordbook, >> especially since both of them happen to use the same file extension. :-/ >> > > I never heard conflict names for 3 years > why do we need multiple path ? to share dictionaries between > applications ? Is it planned for the 3 types (DICT, THES, HYPH)
Sharing between applications would be a good idea. We also should have a look on Thunderbird and Seamonkey and check if we can share files between them and OOo. >> The more general goal would be to make the path settings more flexible >> and extensible. (For example as it is already the case for templates.) >> And especially we would like to be able to deploy >> additional/downloadable dictionaries in the future as packages. >> > > Is this why we need flexible path settings ? > do we really need to open (via user interface) the wordbook paths > modification ? can lead to misconfigurations from end-user ? The extensions concept should be applicable to linguistic pathes also, shouldn't it? We don't see a reason why something that works well for e.g. templates shouldn't work for wordbooks also. The current solution IOHO is unfortunate. That was the starting point that lead to Thomas' "invitation". Let's see how the discussion evolves. Should we do it here and now? In this case we could come up with some suggestions next week. Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
