On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:18:15 +0100, Randomthots
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alexandro Colorado wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:38:11 +0100, Randomthots
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nicu Buculei wrote:
You will often see people defining the "office suite" as something
including *all* the things included in Microsoft Office, probably
this is an effect of Microsoft's clever marketing.
The point isn't whether or not MSO has a component but WHY MSO has a
component. Outlook is a part of MSO because e-mail, calendaring, and
task management are a central set of office-oriented functions.
Frontpage is included because web-page creation is at least as
important in disseminating information as paper documents, pdf, or
presentations.
Rod
So on this new office suite of today where people do most of their
work on web applications, should we all do a Web version of OOo?
Just where in my post did you extract "this new office suite of today
where people do most of their work on web applications"? I was only
pointing out that the end product of content-creation is as likely to be
html as paper. I could point you to any number of web-sites where you
have the choice of viewing the content as html or downloading a pdf of
the exact same thing to print out. I've also seen a number of sites that
offer a Powerpoint, a pdf of the Powerpoint, and an html version of the
exact same slides. Since these are technically oriented sites, I *KNOW*
you've seen the same sort of thing.
At the same time this applications are not very web oriented and
alternative has been develop. Take for example the difference between
downloading a desktop file vs. the W3C css projector media. They both are
builded to have a presentation, but who you think is more 'web-oriented'.
Another option is also PDF file vs. what Macromedia is doing with Flash
paper. Then again having files on line is not so web oriented since the
whole thing is to do work on the browser more than reliying on a desktop
application like a PDF reader or a copy of MSO to view that file.
In my mind the only real question is *how much* html support is
appropriate. Should it be an "export to html" button akin to the "export
to pdf"? Direct editing of html code with syntax checking? WSIWYG layout
like FrontPage, Dreamweaver, et al? Site management? I'm not sure where
that line should be, but wherever it is go that far, no further, and do
what you do as well as possible.
Well one option is to have a server based so OOo saves directly to your
website. Another is to make the html more customized like choose encoding
type and doctype, that will make it more compliant at least.
If you have seen webapplications like gallery that is a webapplication to
display images they have manufacture different methods to ease the process
of uploading pictures using a java client or an automation of zip files.
The more web oriented will mean that the application will know what you
want to do and save you steps in the process to publish. I wonder if we
should incorporate flash paper as part of the export engine, simply
because we already do it for impress (as swf) and flash paper might just
need some minor adaptations and also have better formating.
Impress tries to be web-oriented using the dynamic applications on ASP and
Perl, unfortunately the lack of knowledge of this tool, hasn't make it
easy to port it to other web-apps like PHP or Ruby on rails.
Should we
blog instead of producing documents?
Blog instead of producing documents? Why is it an either/or question? I
don't know a lot about blogging, but from what I've seen they seem like
fairly simple standard web-pages. Nothing fancy; surely within the
capabilities of OOo. I'll leave it to others to tell us if the mechanics
of posting such a thing could be a reasonable addition to OOo.
Well it is fancy, what I mean with that is acknowledging some major blogs
API's like the Blogger API. And have an app like gnome blog
(http://www.gnome.org/~seth/gnome-blog/) which lets you type on the
desktop and automatically post it on the blog with just saving.
They are compliants with Blogger, Advogato, Movable Type, WordPress,
LiveJournal and Pyblosxom. If there is some more php development we can
make a class or component to be able to post to all the custom LAMP blogs.
Should we have more compatibility
with our Cellphones and PDA and have bluetooth native support?
Now I think you're just being facetious. I've seen you post on very
technical subjects so I'm pretty sure you know that "bluetooth native
support" is meaningless in this context. While we're at it, lets throw
in native support for Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, Ethernet, ATM, Frame Relay, Token
Ring, FDDI, and 56K Dialup. I suppose you could include Telegraph,
Telex, and Semaphore flags as well. Bluetooth is a Physical and Data
Link layer networking technology that is totally transparent at the
Application level. It's even transparent to browsers, e-mail, and the
lowly ping command.
OOo wont have to prive this nativeness, I am talking about being aware of
layers such as D-Bus which is a layer that talks to devices and kernel. If
applications connect to d-bus they can do stuff on-connect. Like for
example publish your pictures to the web once you plug the USB on your
cammera.
If OOo talks to D-Bus for it will call bluez (bluetooth component) and
will make the option to export directly to the cellphone without you
having to save to the harddrive and then using a third application to do
the export.
You usually see something like this with sync plug-in in outlook which
have the option to directly transport your agenda to your handheld without
needing to saving to a file and then doing a IR/bluetooth transport.
Rod
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Alexandro Colorado
CoLeader of OpenOffice.org ES
http://es.openoffice.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
