>>> Note that everywhere where there is a "feature-info:" in the "Spec. >>> abstract" column of the Release Notes the process used a dirty fallback >> Why is that fallback "dirty"? I don't think that everything mentioned in >> the release notes needs a full blown specification. > > Seconded.
/me too > The "dirty" in the fall-back is that it doesn't preserve > formatting ;-) i.e. the text written should be surrounded by <pre> tags, > e.g. see i74918 in http://development.openoffice.org/releases/2.3.0.html While we are at it ... Somebody should look at those notes *before* they're published. It's nice to have automatisms, but as with other automatisms, there's a need for manual post-work. In this case, IMO it's a strong need. In the current form, which a) has a unfriendly layout b) contains semantic, grammatical and orthographic errors c) contains duplicates, it is a little bit of a shame, given that usually, we expect this to be a very early reading for a lot of people, once a new version is out. Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
