Kelvin Eldridge wrote: >> As I wrote in my reply to Alexandro at least partially the resulting >> HTML code is so by intent - because it is easier to reimport it in a way >> that the document looks the same as before. >> >> As a compromise we consider to improve our XHTML transformation so that >> you can export your document in a way where the result looks more >> "professional". OTOH reimporting the document into Writer/Web might give >> less satisfactory results. You can see this transformation based filter >> as comparable to the PDF export: it's a publishing filter, not a >> "saving" filter. > > Hmmm. If I read this correctly, I think the Writer/Web module is better. No > need to import/export and users roughly get what they see.
Well, there are two target audiences: one that ones to edit files and they don't care about the quality of the HTML code as long as the page looks good in the most important browsers. And there is another one that *does* care for the quality of the code, and for them the transformation is an additional tool. They can use the import/export filters in the time where they are still making changes to the file and finally (when they publish their document) they can export it to XHTML, very much in the same way as they work on an odt file that finally is exported to pdf. >> So this sounds as you see it the same as we do. Our problem is that we >> don't know how many people do the same. > > Excellent to hear you feel the same way. > > I can't help feeling this is one of those cases where a user like myself > could > probably put up their hand to help the project and the potential users. > > 1. I could watch/review the mailing lists for people who use the package to > start getting a base of users as an identifiable group. > > Would this help? Honestly speaking I'm not sure and I don't want anybody to do work that is a potential waste of time. I'm currently thinking that we should try to get direct user feedback from all users downloading OOo. I think answering a few questions is bearable if they can help developing the future of the program they are using. > If you want to see an overview of the course go to www.JustLocal.com.au. > Click > on the MyAds image towards the right. > > If you think anything else in this vein would help let me know. I will try do find some time. Sounds interesting. > Now I hadn't previously managed to find the "HTML (Writer)" option. That > works > much better. > > If I didn't find this option in 3-4 years, I suspect it isn't going to be > obvious to others. :-) The current situation is a problem for users that have changed from other applications (not only Word) to Writer. If you load an HTML document into e.g. Word you can do all with the document you can do with Word documents also, e.g. embedding graphics and save them in the standard format of the application. Both of them is *not* possible in Writer/Web by intent (for roundtrip reasons) so people think something is wrong. If we opened HTML files in Writer by default it would be as they expecting it. The best idea I had so far is to make Writer/Web a special mode of Writer that can be switched on or off. Unfortunately that isn't possible ATM. > - The graphic issue when saving is no longer an issue. > - The prompt when saving is something I don't particularly like. > - I don't see any option to see the source code. (This in theory should not > be > required, but in practice it is very important.) That confuses me a bit - I thought that the users of Writer/Web aren't interested in the source code. But yes, that would be something to change. > - The extra features of Writer concern me as I said before as the user will > select things that won't work. (In Writer/Web you guys have done a very good > job limiting the options to protect the user.) Yes, that's the main concern. >> Well, there is no absolute certainty in anything. >> You can be sure that Writer/Web won't vanish before OOo3.0. And removing >> it for 3.0 is also not planned yet. That's the biggest certainty I can >> give here. > > Understand, we live in changing times. > > I find with all software development that things get gradually phased out. > First from the menus in one release, and then dropped one or two releases > later. > > This may not happen so much with OpenOffice.org, but then again I didn't > expect HTML Editor to be dropped from the Windows XP menus, or as a promoted > module, so it already has happened. The menu was overcrowded. Math was also removed and nobody will ever think about removing Math from OOo. > If Writer/Web was to be dropped, what is the worst possible timing that would > occur in very rough terms. Would it be 6, 12, 18, 24 months? I'm sure it won't be dropped in 2007. And there are no concrete plans to do it even in the following time. 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]
