On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > Louis, > > Are you suggesting that extensions, the format of .oxt files, and the means > by which extensions can integrate into operation of an ODF processor should > be the subject of the ODF specification or some other interoperability > agreement? > > At the moment it is all OpenOffice.org-specific under whatever variations > arise as part of Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice divergence. >
Also, some OpenOffice extensions are explicitly to support other formats. For example, there is an EPUB extension, and we've talked about moving the Wordperfect support into its own extension. However, the template repository is ODF and a well-written template should be generic enough to work with different ODF editors. But extensions are tied to the application's automation interface, and that differers from editor to editor. Another approach would be to consider what types of applications could be done as operations directly on the document format, using something like the ODF Toolkit. "Extensions" done that way might be made more portable, since they could have fewer dependencies on the app, e.g., as little as just being handed a stream for the current document. > - Dennis > > PS: I believe consolidated/federated repositories with a common catalog > identifying extensions, what they work with, platform requirements, > licensing, and packaging is intended as part of the evolution of the > extensions and templates service, along with reliance on SourceForge as a > friendly host. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Louis Suárez-Potts [mailto:lui...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:10 > To: ooo-dev@incubator > Subject: Proposal: The ODF Commons > > [ ... ] > > This led to the obvious conclusion--at least, obvious to me: provided > license permits, I'd think that it makes sense to have a single site > for extensions that would work with all (or as many as…) ODF > implementations. The site could be a list of links, as I had for the > old OOo support page. But I'd rather hope that it would be more than > that, and be a commons we could all benefit from. > > I have no illusion that this will come about anytime soon (or that it > even ought to). However, my interest lies in making ODF (note, I > wrote, "ODF") more usable and more obviously usable now and later for > the tens of millions--billions, soon enough--wanting to use the app. > And one thing that they will want is extensions. I know I did. > > How to proceed? > > Well, a discussion on the matter is always a good place to start. But > it would also be good to have a clear understanding of the obstacles, > of whatever nature, lie in waiting. > > Note, this is not at all about consolidating the split communities. > That's up to the developers and the teams and the people involved. > > Nor is this proposal about taking advantage of LibreOffice's > extensions because the ones I wanted two nights ago were not current > on the old OOo site. No, I expect that repository to be updated quite > soon and to be stocked with interesting work as the Apache effort > gains the attention it merits and appeals to enterprise users as well > as consumers. (And as a strong supporter of the project of which I am > a member, I will do what I can to further this podling's progress.) > > Rather, this is about making it easier for users to access those > things they want and for developers to reach communities and markets > that want them. And I see a page that concentrates information a > useful step. > > cheers, > Louis >
