> On 16 Mar 2017, at 09:58, Christoph Sch?fer <christoph-schaefer at gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. M?rz 2017 um 17:50 Uhr
>> Von: "scrib at wexfordpress.com" <scrib at wexfordpress.com>
>> An: "Scribus User Mailing List" <scribus at lists.scribus.net>
>> Betreff: Re: [scribus] Quick route to story editor.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>> From: "Craig Bradney" <cbradney at scribus.info>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 12:19 PM
>> To: "Scribus User Mailing List" <scribus at lists.scribus.net>
>> Subject: Re: [scribus] Quick route to story editor.
>>
>>> On 15 Mar 2017, at 10:03, ale rimoldi <ale.comp_06 at xox.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>> hi john
>>>
>>>
>>>> I know that at least one of the developers doesn't like the story
>> editor
>>>
>>> could you name him so that we can fire him?
>>
>> You raised the ticket Ale :)
>>
>> ALE was critical of the Story Editor before. I am used to it and like its
>> features. I didn't want to deal with
>> massive changes both for my own comfort and for the accuracy of what I put
>> in a book I am writing.
>>>
>>>
>>> no, not eliminating.
>>> but replacing it with something that can show the formatting as tags (but
>> no wysiwyg)
>>
>> Maybe. That's your idea...
>>
>> I hope that something gets settled well in advance of the release of
>> 1.6.0. TeX style
>> tags like "\bi{foo}" to print the word foo in bold italics could be
>> added.
>>
>> In general additions don't do much harm. Deletions tend to obsolete
>> existing skills and old documents.
>>
>> John C.
>
>
> I'm absolutely with John here (cf.
> https://bugs.scribus.net/view.php?id=14673). Removing this CM item is simply
> removing a feature and disturbing many workflows or editing habits.
>
> I also agree with ale that the SE needs to be replaced with something better,
> but since we have no one to accomplish this task at the moment, what's the
> point of removing a CM entry? I just re-created a photobook originally
> created with a dedicated photobook software, and you can believe me that the
> SE, even in its current form, saved a lot of time.
>
> Moreover, I'm asking myself what brain-dead train of thought lies behind the
> request to remove the entry. Many users (including myself) would like to see
> a better SE. A rational approach would be to write a new SE and then replace
> the current one. Instead, access to the SE has been made more complicated
> without a replacement being available. This reminds me of the madness
> currently going on in Washington and Westminster.
>
>
>
Fair enough, I'll revert the change.
Why is control T so hard to press though?
Craig
