date:20110103

It seems that all of this started with my reassurance that the website
team was developing a full community framework using Drupal that will
support extension and template management to make them more accessible
to the community as well as provide the decision framework for
inclusion into the LibreOffice core.

The work that the website team is doing is leading towards the
solution of implementing a Drupal site for this functionality and much
more.
Although it has been a bit slow going with the current website, David
has done a very good job and I am sure once we see the outcome of the
work which has largely been private, more people will start to get
involved and start improving what David has implemented as well as
creating new content.

In working with the team on the Drupal site, I feel confident in
saying that this is not a hindrance to the current website as we are
quietly working away at creating the best site possible.
The only hindrance seems to be these discussions which occur from time
to time outside of the website list, maybe we should avoid this again
:)

Personally I have been focussing on the Drupal site as this is where I
feel I can have the biggest benefit to the community, based on my
skill set.

Once libreoffice.org is up and running, looking professional and LibO
3.3 is released, we will then start to consult with the stakeholders
on the path forward.

I apologise for initiating this disruption, and as you can see there
are some very passionate people involved who are making great
progress. I think it is important that we acknowledge them for putting
in all this effort on all of the website team endeavours.

I have faith that the website team will produce the best possible
outcome for the community, possibly through consensus rather than
consulting the Steering Committee again.

Thanks,
Michael Wheatland

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons


Michael Wheatland wrote (04-01-11 02:59)

If everyone was as clear and concise as you there would be no
confusion about any issues.


No, to me this is an obvious example of someone apparently unable to 
understand,



working on the Silverstripe site is that they don't understand the CMS


using silly arguments,


Over the coming couple of weeks, I will put together a proposal for
the Steering Committee to consider an implementation plan.


and only interested in his own plan.

Cor

--
 - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[tdf-discuss] LibreOffice 3.3 Release Party wiki page -- Let's celebrate our distro!

2011-01-03 Thread Marc Paré

This is just another gentle reminder of our "LibreOffice 3.3 Release 
Party" wiki page.


If you are planning on holding a release party or just celebrating our 
latest LibreOffice distro, feel free to advertise the date and location 
on the "LibreOffice Release 3.3 Release Party" wiki page.[1] You may 
also find some suggestions on this page on possible locations and 
activities. Make sure to take many photos and perhaps blog about it. 
Don't have a place to blog or to post your photos? Just leave us a note 
on our marketing list and we will see how we could help you.


Why should we register our dates and locations? The Release Party wiki 
page may be seen by wiki site visitors who will then see how vibrant a 
community we are and how proud we are of our excellent product. Let's 
make ourselves heard.


Cheers

Marc

[1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing/LibOReleaseEvents


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
 wrote:
> Hello Michael,
>
> Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 01:26:09 +0930,
> Michael Wheatland  a écrit :
>
>> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
>>  wrote:
>> > "to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org" does not seem to
>> > mean anything to me. "With a view to go with Drupal" was rather:
>> > with the possible option of Drupal in the long term.
>>
>> Sorry, I meant to write libreoffice.org not drupal.org
>
> ah, okay.
>
>>
>> > "a little bit of misinformation", Michael, is perhaps your
>> > enthusiasm leading to understand things the way you would like them
>> > to be :-). At this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans
>> > to move to Drupal; there seems indeed to have been some early
>> > misunderstanding, but if you wish the SC will clarify its position
>> > (again) .  But given that I'm a member of the said SC, it might be
>> > useful to you to take my words into account.
>>
>> To make this clear in my mind I have listened and read the decision
>> statement from the Steering Committee decision.
>>
>> The conversation on the conference call:
>> "I would ask the people working on Drupal to do a more detailed
>> planning in the next month regarding additional services..."
>
> right.
>
>> There were some bits that I didn't quite understand (poor quality
>> sound), but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider
>> Drupal as the long term solution.
>
> I might repeat Cor's statements here, but "many people voiced their
> opinion that we should consider Drupal as the long term solution"
> means: many people "think we should decide whether Drupal would be a
> long term solution" . It's hardly a Steering Committee decision
> requesting the use of Drupal.
>>
>>
>> The statement to the website list from the SC is as follows:
>> "the CMS decision was taken: it will be Silverstripe as a starter,
>> with plans to migrate to Drupal later on."
>>
>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/592
>
> "plans... later on". Not "now let's rush towards creating the
> definitive Drupal website"...
>
>>
>> I would have thought that this official statement is very clear in the
>> outcome
>
> Obviously it is conditional, and makes clear that it's an option for
> the long term.
>
>> and the website team has had a large group of people (larger
>> than that working on the current site) working towards this end, whom
>> might I say have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time.
>> Clearly the implementation is still a few months off as we start to
>> involve Native Language teams and other functional teams.
>
> And to our great dismay, calls for help for the current website, which
> has all the top priority, went lost in a sea of mails about the Drupal
> project, and despite several mails of people explaining Drupal was just
> an option.
>
>>
>> I hope this clarifies my point, and makes it quite clear that I am not
>> just hearing what I want to. This was the official decision statement
>> as communicated back to the website mailing list.
>>
> Well you now see that the official decision was not a definitive
> statement about Drupal, and that it was *considered* as an option.

Thanks for the clarification Charles,
This makes a lot more sense than a couple of other abrupt, emotional
statements made by others regarding the CMS decision that we have seen
on the mailing lists.
If everyone was as clear and concise as you there would be no
confusion about any issues.

As you can see, there is a lot of enthusiasm around the Drupal
development which has been put to good use and we should not waste.
From my conversations the only reason a lot of people have not been
working on the Silverstripe site is that they don't understand the CMS
and are not really interested in learning it.
It is true, once you use Drupal, you will never install another CMS.

Over the coming couple of weeks, I will put together a proposal for
the Steering Committee to consider an implementation plan.

Again,
Thanks for clarifying this point.

Michael Wheatland

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: Drupal discussion once more :-( [was: Addons]

2011-01-03 Thread Marc Paré


Le 2011-01-03 16:38, Bernhard Dippold a écrit :

Thanks for note Bernhard.

So great, let's get back to site building and quit this vitriol jousting 
over the Drupal site. If the SC had NNOT called for a Drupal example 
over the next 6 months, then the Sc would  certainly not have let the 
Drupal group of LibreOffice contributing members go on with the site 
building without having an official comment about abandoning it. The SC 
would certainly not have had a group of talented site builders go on for 
almost 2 months for nothing.


As I said, in my note "In the meantime, many of the Drupal team have put 
aside their time to help out." If the people building the Silverstripe 
LibreOffice site need any help, then please let us have a list and we 
will work on it according to our abilities.


You can very well read my frustration in my postings over all of this 
strange behaviour.



Cheers

Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

2011-01-03 Thread BRM

- Original Message 

> From: Barbara Duprey 
> On 1/3/2011 11:19 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> > Barbara,
> >
> >  Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600,
> > Barbara Duprey  a écrit  :
> >
> >> On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote:
> >>>  Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto:
> >>>  [...]
> >>>
>  inconsistencies. However, it's  fortunately or unfortunately,
>  should not be a problem:  OOo&   LibO implement the existing and
>  used version  of MS *proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007
>  and 2010  that are called OOXML. They're not exactly the ISO
>  standard,  far from that; feel free to call them transitional if
>  you  wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call them
>   MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer  convenience
>  to its
> >>> This is the point. MS  Office 2007 and 2010 doesn't implement ISO/IEC
> >>> 29300 also called  OOXML.
> >>>
> >>> Please change the subject because it's  completely messing. Call
> >>> simply MS XML proprietary  formats.
> >>>
> >>> Davide
> >> They don't implement  the "Strict" version -- but I think we'd have a
> >> hard time arguing  that they don't implement the "Transitional"
> >> version that must also  be considered standard, it's documented in
> >> that specification, and  MS wrote it to cover themselves. If we called
> >> these formats  proprietary, we could get into real trouble.
> >>
> > Well, the  problem is that it's not that documented. Really,
> > Transitional OOXML was  an honourable way out for MS at the ISO's JTC 1.
> >
> > Basically the  deal was that the strict OOXML was rumoured to be clean
> > (although I  don't think it is and I'm not the only one) while the
> > transitional was  "offering more features" and was more in line with the
> > existing and used  formats used by MS Office 2007 and 2010. At this
> > stage we have no  evidence that the transitional OOXML and the formats
> > used in MS office  suites match, and I'm not even saying this out of bad
> > will against MS:  it's a really important question.
> >
> > best,
> 
> Thanks! Very  interesting. It still doesn't seem safe to call these 
>"proprietary" formats,  though, 
>
> even though the standard's documentation is seriously flawed. Not  sure I buy 
>that "honourable" way 
>
> out part -- pragmatic, yes, face-saving,  yes, but honorable? I'd have a hard 
>time applying that term 
>
> to what happened  there! I really feel for you guys who were in the thick of 
>it, trying to stop  the 
>
> juggernaut that was rolling over the process.
> 

While I do agree per your "honourable" comment...

OOXML in any form[1] is certainly not standard, nor is it open.
So what _would_ you call it if you were not going to call it what it really is 
(proprietary)?

Honestly, we shouldn't be trying to be politically correct, but rather honest, 
if not bluntly so.

Call out Microsoft on their lack of following even their own standard; it'll 
have a greater impact as the community rallies behind that instead of trying to 
be politically correct and let them get away with doing what they've done.

A goose by any other name is still a goose.

Ben

[1] Even Microsoft makes no qualms about not following ISO OOXML or even  
giving 
you options so that you know you are writing ISO OOXML -  transitional or 
strict.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

To keep from expanding an already over used thread I started a new one
for this. Consider it as different view of a dead topic if you wish but
it is written to help others understand ways to help and provide
something beneficial to the community.

Some weeks back I had an idea that I though might benefit Libo, a change
in the way Calc sheets were copied and renamed. I sent a email to
Michael with an idea. He replied and suggested that I add the idea to
the Easy Hacks wiki, http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Easy_Hacks ,
which I did. Much to my surprise it was not to long I saw that one of
the developers had picked it up and was working on the idea. The
suggestion has now been added to the mail branch and should show up in
the 3.4 version of Libo. The item has been moved to the "Completed"
Easy Hacks section,
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Easy_Hacks/Completed#Change_Sheet_copy_process
. To see how it will look see
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5215855/c-m-process.pdf , this is screen shots
showing current and future looks.

I wanted to try this myself but not being a programmer and not knowing
where to even start I when to those that know how and when to make the
change/addition. I would suggest to others, like myself, do the same.

The saying "Help me to change the things I can, accept the things I
can't and the wisdom to know the difference" sure comes to mind sometimes.

Andy

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Drupal discussion once more :-( [was: Addons]

2011-01-03 Thread David Nelson

Hi Klaus, :-)

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 06:04, klaus-jürgen weghorn ol
 wrote:
> http://pumbaa.documentfoundation.org:7780/ for the current work on the
> design

Ivan and I are busy finalizing the implementation of Nikash' template
as a SilverStripe theme, and the progress is much more than you
actually see on the sandbox - expect to see it transposed there very,
very shortly (Ivan now has SSH access there, too). We will be talking
on the phone later today. After that, we'll be finalizing the
SilverStripe templates, and I'll be doing some more work on the
libreoffice.org content before the "handover" on Jan 10.

Jan 10 should be considered the day on which the libreoffice.org site
will have reached a satisfactory starting point for the community's
needs, and for subsequent evolution and development by the LibreOffice
website and design team(s), and by the SC and LibreOffice marketing
people.

David Nelson

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Drupal discussion once more :-( [was: Addons]

2011-01-03 Thread klaus-jürgen weghorn ol


Hi Bernhard,
you forgot two things:
http://www.libreoffice.org/admin for helping on the content
http://pumbaa.documentfoundation.org:7780/ for the current work on the 
design


Helping hands are needed by the great work, David has done (and does).

--
Greetings
k-j

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Drupal discussion once more :-( [was: Addons]


Hi Bernhard,

Thanks for writing and sharing this.
I think what you write about the focus on what is really important right 
now, and the good practice not to damage that process, is very valuable!


Cor


Bernhard Dippold wrote (03-01-11 22:38)

Hi Marc, Michael, all,

Marc Paré schrieb:

Disclaimer: I am on the Drupal team and think that this is the
better solution for the LibreOffice CMS solution.


It's your right to think what you want to - you are even allowed to post
your thoughts ;-)

... as long as these postings don't cause hindrances and drawbacks to
the LibreOffice community.

The SC decision was clear in one point:

We need to create the LibreOffice website in the shortest possible time
- and therefore SilverStripe was the CMS to start with and Drupal will
be an option for the future.



[...] It is therefore logical to consider that [...] if a group
decides to work on a Drupal solution, it is their prerogative and,
that these contributing members will therefore be able to work on
this solution as their time permits. If so many of these members
decide to work on the Drupal solution to the detriment of the
Silverstripe solution, then, again, the SC will perhaps have to
reconsider its choice of CMS accordingly.


You're totally right. But the reconsideration might be different than
you think of...

I just rephrase your last sentence according to the SC decision:

If so many of the community members decide to work on a version that
might become a solution in the further future instead of contributing to
the urgently needed short term solution, then the SC might have to
reconsider its decision in a way that leads to more contributors for the
website we need *now* - not later on.

Of course it it everybody's free choice to work in any area of our
community. But if this work begins to hinder other *more important* and
*really necessary* work, it is on the Steering Committee's agenda to
find a way that leads in the right direction.

I'm not a member of the SC, so it's just my personal suggestion:

Please avoid *any* action that might been understood as inviting people
to the Drupal team instead of the general website team.

Our website needs to represent the high quality of our product and the
professionalism of our community - at the latest when LibO 3.3 will be
released. If you don't see this urgency - or think it has lower priority
than working on the Drupal site - you might be considered as not
supporting the LibreOffice community, but want to establish a Drupal
branch inside LibO.

If you have the skills to work on the short term goal, so please donate
your time and expertise to the community. The community doesn't need any
work on the Drupal site now: It lacks of website content, design
improvement and active contribution on the SilverStripe site.

For the last three weeks David Nelson has done a tremendous work,
creating the current LibO website from scratch without any help and
improving the design now (together with one or two others being able to
spend a bit of their time).

In the meantime you created a Drupal website, filled it with content and
created your own design around it.

Please consider to contribute to the *real* website from Jan 10th on,
when David presents his new design.


If the Drupal site seems to have outpaced that of the Silverstripe,
the credit should go to the Drupal team contributors who are more
adept at creating a Drupal CMS site. It would make no sense to ask a
Drupal experienced contributors to slow down because the Silverstripe
team is not able to keep up to their development.


As you read several times in this thread and elsewhere on the mailing
lists, TDF and LibO are not AGAINST anything, they are FOR! This is not
only meant for marketing activities outside the community, but even more
for interactions inside the LibO community!

So your competitive attitude AGAINST the SilverStripe team should be
reconsidered in my opinion - especially as the SilverStripe team
consists of the people who want to have a high quality website at the
time of the LibO release!


The Drupal team is currently working hard to deliver this solution
within the 6 months delay accorded by the SC. It may, in fact, be
able to present to the membership a working site within an earlier
time frame that was firstly accorded, thanks to the team's hard
work.


And then the Drupal team might see that their work can't be considered
by the relevant people in the community, because they still work hard on
the existing website...

I could imagine that the SC postpones any activity on Drupal until the
*real thing* is in a professional state...


It will then be up to the membership to give constructive criticism
to the newly worked Drupal site to see if this is what will work
best for LibreOffice. After all, the same is happening in the
documentation team with their different projects. Let's keep an open
mind.


I'm not involved in documentation, so I can't comment on the activities
there. But I don'

Re: [tdf-discuss] Drupal discussion once more :-( [was: Addons]

2011-01-03 Thread David Nelson

Hi Bernhard, :-)

+1 100%

David Nelson

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Drupal discussion once more :-( [was: Addons]

2011-01-03 Thread Bernhard Dippold


Hi Marc, Michael, all,

Marc Paré schrieb:

Disclaimer: I am on the Drupal team and think that this is the
better solution for the LibreOffice CMS solution.


It's your right to think what you want to - you are even allowed to post
your thoughts ;-)

... as long as these postings don't cause hindrances and drawbacks to
the LibreOffice community.

The SC decision was clear in one point:

We need to create the LibreOffice website in the shortest possible time
- and therefore SilverStripe was the CMS to start with and Drupal will
be an option for the future.



[...] It is therefore logical to consider that [...] if a group
decides to work on a Drupal solution, it is their prerogative and,
that these contributing members will therefore be able to work on
this solution as their time permits. If so many of these members
decide to work on the Drupal solution to the detriment of the
Silverstripe solution, then, again, the SC will perhaps have to
reconsider its choice of CMS accordingly.


You're totally right. But the reconsideration might be different than
you think of...

I just rephrase your last sentence according to the SC decision:

If so many of the community members decide to work on a version that
might become a solution in the further future instead of contributing to
the urgently needed short term solution, then the SC might have to
reconsider its decision in a way that leads to more contributors for the
website we need *now* - not later on.

Of course it it everybody's free choice to work in any area of our
community. But if this work begins to hinder other *more important* and
*really necessary* work, it is on the Steering Committee's agenda to
find a way that leads in the right direction.

I'm not a member of the SC, so it's just my personal suggestion:

Please avoid *any* action that might been understood as inviting people
to the Drupal team instead of the general website team.

Our website needs to represent the high quality of our product and the
professionalism of our community - at the latest when LibO 3.3 will be
released. If you don't see this urgency - or think it has lower priority
than working on the Drupal site - you might be considered as not
supporting the LibreOffice community, but want to establish a Drupal
branch inside LibO.

If you have the skills to work on the short term goal, so please donate
your time and expertise to the community. The community doesn't need any
work on the Drupal site now: It lacks of website content, design
improvement and active contribution on the SilverStripe site.

For the last three weeks David Nelson has done a tremendous work,
creating the current LibO website from scratch without any help and
improving the design now (together with one or two others being able to
spend a bit of their time).

In the meantime you created a Drupal website, filled it with content and
created your own design around it.

Please consider to contribute to the *real* website from Jan 10th on,
when David presents his new design.


If the Drupal site seems to have outpaced that of the Silverstripe,
the credit should go to the Drupal team contributors who are more
adept at creating a Drupal CMS site. It would make no sense to ask a
Drupal experienced contributors to slow down because the Silverstripe
team is not able to keep up to their development.


As you read several times in this thread and elsewhere on the mailing
lists, TDF and LibO are not AGAINST anything, they are FOR! This is not
only meant for marketing activities outside the community, but even more
for interactions inside the LibO community!

So your competitive attitude AGAINST the SilverStripe team should be
reconsidered in my opinion - especially as the SilverStripe team
consists of the people who want to have a high quality website at the
time of the LibO release!


The Drupal team is currently working hard to deliver this solution
within the 6 months delay accorded by the SC. It may, in fact, be
able to present to the membership a working site within an earlier
time frame that was firstly accorded, thanks to the team's hard
work.


And then the Drupal team might see that their work can't be considered
by the relevant people in the community, because they still work hard on
the existing website...

I could imagine that the SC postpones any activity on Drupal until the
*real thing* is in a professional state...


It will then be up to the membership to give constructive criticism
to the newly worked Drupal site to see if this is what will work
best for LibreOffice. After all, the same is happening in the
documentation team with their different projects. Let's keep an open
mind.


I'm not involved in documentation, so I can't comment on the activities
there. But I don't know about a SC decision for one solution now and
considering another solution later on.

Here *is* a clear decision by the highest board in LibreOffice: We need
the SilverStripe site *first* and will consider Drupal *later*.

Open mind doesn't

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 1/3/2011 11:19 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:

Barbara,

Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600,
Barbara Duprey a écrit :

On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote:

Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto:
[...]

inconsistencies. However, it's fortunately or unfortunately,
should not be a problem: OOo& LibO implement the existing and
used version of MS *proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007
and 2010 that are called OOXML. They're not exactly the ISO
standard, far from that; feel free to call them transitional if
you wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call them
MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer convenience
to its

This is the point. MS Office 2007 and 2010 doesn't implement ISO/IEC
29300 also called OOXML.

Please change the subject because it's completely messing. Call
simply MS XML proprietary formats.

Davide

They don't implement the "Strict" version -- but I think we'd have a
hard time arguing that they don't implement the "Transitional"
version that must also be considered standard, it's documented in
that specification, and MS wrote it to cover themselves. If we called
these formats proprietary, we could get into real trouble.

Well, the problem is that it's not that documented. Really,
Transitional OOXML was an honourable way out for MS at the ISO's JTC 1.

Basically the deal was that the strict OOXML was rumoured to be clean
(although I don't think it is and I'm not the only one) while the
transitional was "offering more features" and was more in line with the
existing and used formats used by MS Office 2007 and 2010. At this
stage we have no evidence that the transitional OOXML and the formats
used in MS office suites match, and I'm not even saying this out of bad
will against MS: it's a really important question.

best,

Thanks! Very interesting. It still doesn't seem safe to call these "proprietary" formats, though,
even though the standard's documentation is seriously flawed. Not sure I buy that "honourable" way
out part -- pragmatic, yes, face-saving, yes, but honorable? I'd have a hard time applying that term
to what happened there! I really feel for you guys who were in the thick of it, trying to stop the
juggernaut that was rolling over the process.

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


Hello Johannes,

Johannes A. Bodwing wrote (03-01-11 20:31)

Hi Cor,

...



Or is there a system to save proposals for a later check under new
conditions.


Not that I am aware of.


Eventually it could be helfpul to have a list of such ideas in a common
place (TDF or LO) with marks like:
later on - not practicable - and so on and with short reasons.
Because people could check such a "list" and see whether an idea was
already in discussion and what the decision was, even why.
This could prevent that the same proposals come again and again, or
reduce that.
And a "workflow" could be:
You have an idea?
First look at the List ...
If your idea is not mentioned, mail it for discussion ...

Perhaps developers and others could spare some time by that.


Definitely a good idea. A must have somewhere on our wiki or site.
 ( AFAIK we do not have it yet.
   I always think of the wiki, rather than the website,
   because the content might be more subject to changes and of
   course on the wiki more can help  )

But did you have a look at (I myself do it just now..) 
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/ ?

Maybe your idea is a logic addition for that section?


That's my problem with the decisions.


That many things are not clear, just because of the nature of a
FLOSS-community?
I think I do not understand what kind of clarity or confirmation you
are looking for.


In comparison with the real members here I'm from outer space ;-)


Be aware - might change suddenly ;-)


I have to put many things together like a puzzle to get an overview for
myself.


Don't think that any of us has a complete overview. But of course, the 
longer you are somewhere, the easier to find your way.



But it hasn't to be answered right now. I'll ask such things after the
3.3-release again.


And maybe too after the version after that?


That's the reason why I ask such "odd" questions ;-)


(BTW: 3.3 release is not fixed. In this specific case, it will be no
earlier then the OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 release of course.)


Is this a good plan from a psychological point of view?
Because people out of TDF/LO and OOo are waiting for the 3.3, and now:
OOo is personally weaked; some sites write it like "is OOo at the end?"
LO is almost unknown for many potenzial users and has to prove that its
new "system" of Open Office Suite works well.
Is it good in this situation to come as the second? Eventually weeks after?
In a "race" between two usually the second is the loser.


That is one side of the subject.
On the other hand, LibO 3.3.0 will be based on OpenOffice.org 3.3.0. 
Thus it is not easy to release at the same moment or even earlier.
Even more so, since quite some developments started to at the LibO side, 
and changes from Novell and others have been integrated, I would not be 
surprised if we, especially since all is relatively very new, need more 
time for our final QA.

And since I am very good in predicting the past, don't ask me ;-)

Regards,
Cor

--
 - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format


Hi Cor,

...

Where is this to find? I don't know that I saw such a draft.


That is correct. As far as I know, it is just on my mind :-)


Where is your head to look in ;-)


I still intend though, to try to do something on a 'roadmap'


I'll try it,
Johannes

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


Hi Cor,

...


Or is there a system to save proposals for a later check under new 
conditions.


Not that I am aware of.


Eventually it could be helfpul to have a list of such ideas in a common 
place (TDF or LO) with marks like:

later on - not practicable - and so on and with short reasons.
Because people could check such a "list" and see whether an idea was 
already in discussion and what the decision was, even why.
This could prevent that the same proposals come again and again, or 
reduce that.

And a "workflow" could be:
You have an idea?
First look at the List ...
If your idea is not mentioned, mail it for discussion ...

Perhaps developers and others could spare some time by that.


That's my problem with the decisions.


That many things are not clear, just because of the nature of a 
FLOSS-community?
I think I do not understand what kind of clarity or confirmation you 
are looking for.


In comparison with the real members here I'm from outer space ;-)
I have to put many things together like a puzzle to get an overview for 
myself.





But it hasn't to be answered right now. I'll ask such things after the
3.3-release again.


And maybe too after the version after that?


That's the reason why I ask such "odd" questions ;-)

(BTW: 3.3 release is not fixed. In this specific case, it will be no 
earlier then the OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 release of course.)


Is this a good plan from a psychological point of view?
Because people out of TDF/LO and OOo are waiting for the 3.3, and now:
OOo is personally weaked; some sites write it like "is OOo at the end?"
LO is almost unknown for many potenzial users and has to prove that its 
new "system" of Open Office Suite works well.

Is it good in this situation to come as the second? Eventually weeks after?
In a "race" between two usually the second is the loser.

Greetings,
Johannes


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format


Johannes A. Bodwing wrote (03-01-11 19:50)

Johannes A. Bodwing wrote (03-01-11 17:53)

...
I try to get it clearer for me till the 3.3-Release, and eventually with
a summary of the manifesto and other important things, to have lately:
a better basis to clear things in the calm after the release
eventually a shortform of the TDF-goals for people which come new to the
project.


A sorry from my side. I had in mind - months ago - to draft a little
roadmap for the website.
Not that things a carved in stone, far from that, but just to give
some insight in work 'under construction', 'planned', 'should be done'
and such.


Where is this to find? I don't know that I saw such a draft.


That is correct. As far as I know, it is just on my mind :-)
I still intend though, to try to do something on a 'roadmap'

Best,
Cor


--
 - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format


Hello Cor,

...

Johannes A. Bodwing wrote (03-01-11 17:53)


...
I try to get it clearer for me till the 3.3-Release, and eventually with
a summary of the manifesto and other important things, to have lately:
a better basis to clear things in the calm after the release
eventually a shortform of the TDF-goals for people which come new to the
project.


SA sorry from my side. I had in mind - months ago - to draft a little 
roadmap for the website.
Not that things a carved in stone, far from that, but just to give 
some insight in work 'under construction', 'planned', 'should be done' 
and such.


Where is this to find? I don't know that I saw such a draft.


...


Thanks for Info,
Johannes

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format


Hi Johannes,

Johannes A. Bodwing wrote (03-01-11 17:53)


Thanks for the Link. - And I could ask the next questions, but I save it
for later.
I try to get it clearer for me till the 3.3-Release, and eventually with
a summary of the manifesto and other important things, to have lately:
a better basis to clear things in the calm after the release
eventually a shortform of the TDF-goals for people which come new to the
project.


SA sorry from my side. I had in mind - months ago - to draft a little 
roadmap for the website.
Not that things a carved in stone, far from that, but just to give some 
insight in work 'under construction', 'planned', 'should be done' and such.
Although many is common sense, I can well understand that it is hardly 
doable to get a reasonable picture from what is passing on all the mails.



To check the frame for me, in what time about could the 3.3-Release start?


3.3 release is not fixed. In this specific case, it will be no earlier 
then the OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 release of course.


Thanks for your interest,

Cor

--
 - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


Hi Johannes,


Johannes A. Bodwing wrote (03-01-11 18:09)

Hi Italo,

On 1/3/11 8:43 AM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote:


What's the background (for ESC) to decide what leads to the best
software for users?


I apologize for repeating myself, but the ESC will decide upon
positive contributions, suggestions or requests. You suggest a
feature, promote a technology, contribute a new export filter.

...

What I mean now with a real example.
What if I would propose to transform the startcenter into a individual
desktop with drop and drag like the former integrated desktop of
StarOffice. And I would also propose to make it choosable for users:
~ to have it in the LO-window like now the startcenter
~ to dock it like toolbars (perhaps with a constant distance from the
dokument-window)
~ to use it like an external "container" of individual folders, files
and links.

How would someone decide whether it were a positiv feature for LO or not?
Because no one has a crystall ball to look into the future. And it could
be, that such a proposal is denied by LO but ten months later another
producer of an office-suit succeeds with just such a feature.


With a developer driven project, where many developers are paid by 
different companies, which (partly) makes up the daily program of the 
devs, and other devs step in as they like, these questions can not be 
answered in general.


But if the idea is well communicated with developers and makes sense to 
the people that make choices, there is a good change.


But I guess you already understood that.


And if it were denied, is it lost than till somebody others makes the
same proposal years later.


And if an idea is not picked up now, then indeed at any time people that 
do want to implement it, can stand up and co-operate.
But if the idea has a clear impact on the overall design / functionality 
of the suite, then of course the ESC will have the final vote.



Or is there a system to save proposals for a later check under new conditions.


Not that I am aware of.


That's my problem with the decisions.


That many things are not clear, just because of the nature of a 
FLOSS-community?
I think I do not understand what kind of clarity or confirmation you are 
looking for.



But it hasn't to be answered right now. I'll ask such things after the
3.3-release again.


And maybe too after the version after that?
(BTW: 3.3 release is not fixed. In this specific case, it will be no 
earlier then the OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 release of course.)


Kind regards,
Cor

--
 - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: Addons

2011-01-03 Thread Marc Paré

Disclaimer: I am on the Drupal team and think that this is the better 
solution for the LibreOffice CMS solution.


As this conversation just seems to be going in circles, could we just 
leave it to the fact that the SC did voice its decision that the Drupal 
solution was to be reviewed at a later date (within 6 months) and that a 
move would be considered then?


It is therefore logical to consider that, being a volunteer and 
meritocratic organisation, that if a group decides to work on a Drupal 
solution, it is their prerogative and, that these contributing members 
will therefore be able to work on this solution as their time permits. 
If so many of these members decide to work on the Drupal solution to the 
detriment of the Silverstripe solution, then, again, the SC will perhaps 
have to reconsider its choice of CMS accordingly. If the Drupal site 
seems to have outpaced that of the Silverstripe, the credit should go to 
the Drupal team contributors who are more adept at creating a Drupal CMS 
site. It would make no sense to ask a Drupal experienced contributors to 
slow down because the Silverstripe team is not able to keep up to their 
development. You can easily see the listing of the Drupal members on the 
Drupal team membership wiki page.[1] And, the list or interested members 
still seems to grow.


The Drupal team is currently working hard to deliver this solution 
within the 6 months delay accorded by the SC. It may, in fact, be able 
to present to the membership a working site within an earlier time frame 
that was firstly accorded, thanks to the team's hard work. It will then 
be up to the membership to give constructive criticism to the newly 
worked Drupal site to see if this is what will work best for 
LibreOffice. After all, the same is happening in the documentation team 
with their different projects. Let's keep an open mind.


Please do visit the Drupal site to see its development[2], please do 
test out sections of the site when announcements go out for its testing 
phase, please do criticise in order to help out in order to improve the 
site. This is all in the spirit of creating a great CMS site of choice 
for the LibreOffice final home destination.


As to why I consider the Drupal CMS the right solution? Just visit the 
organisation on the Silverstripe and Drupal wiki pages and this speaks 
volumes.[3] Also consider that we (LibreOffice membership) have more 
Drupal-able members who could help out to level out the administration 
workload, not to mention the offer from a Drupal website development 
house's offer to help out. We would most likely be able to find more 
Drupal oriented organisations to help out than Silverstripe. The bottom 
line is that Drupal help with resources, modules, and most of all 
technical help are plentiful.


So, let's see, as per SC decision, what kind of site a Drupal 
LibreOffice would have to offer and let's all concentrate on getting a 
great CMS to work for LibreOffice.


In the meantime, many of the Drupal team have put aside their time to 
help out. I had offered help with the documentation and started, but 
stepped aside for David who has done a fabulous job -- well done David. 
Your work is awesome! However, with a looming 6-month delay, the Drupal 
team will get back to work on their proposal and present, again, to the 
membership and SC what they would consider a better solution for the 
LibreOffice CMS website.


Cheers

Marc
Drupal Team Member

[1] 
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Website/Drupal#Drupal_Website_Development_Team:
[2] http://www.libreofficeaustralia.org/ (you need a login/password to 
see the real extent of progress on the site)
[3] 
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Website#The_LibreOffice_SilverStripe_Project




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft

2011-01-03 Thread Steven Shelton

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 1/1/2011 12:52 PM, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote:
> Did you know that anything running Linux in France is not a
> computer? The outworking of this is a skewed market in favour of
> MS operating systems, and therefore in favour of MS applications.
> This DOES affect LibO.

[snip]

> "As a result, the government needed a way to define what devices
> qualify as computers, which led to the decision to deem a device a
> computer only if it runs Microsoft Windows. This means that, as
> far as the French government is concerned, a tablet running any
> other operating system -- including Linux, Mac OS, or Android -- is
> just a device used by pirates who need to be taxed."

As an attorney, my suspicion is that this story has something
misleading about it. What I actually suspect is that there may have
been an exemption created for Windows machines because MS may already
be paying some kind of licensing-related tax, and taxing Windows
machines would be a double-tax. There are hundreds of examples of this
in tax law throughout the world, usually related to tariffs of some
sort (i.e., the domestic manufacturers of Product X have to pay a tax
that foreign manufacturers don't, so a tax is created on Product X
that specifically exempts the domestic manufacturers).

- -- 
Steven Shelton
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk0iDIQACgkQXUonIzCvpdNpVwCeO26EZ+5/joVMlBFeZx/roK18
9KkAnjUXOmpiO0cyXtWcj+DeYrJUK62F
=QDAb
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft

Hi Alex,

> The current French government needs money, big time - the
> mobile/embedded market is still fairly bouyant - what better way to
> generate a revenue stream to fill the depleted coffers ? ;-)

How cynical!

You make them almost sound like the UK government, who put 5p onto the price of 
a litre of 
petrol or a pint of beer when money is needed!

zf

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft

2011-01-03 Thread Luis E Vásquez r

Medellin, enero 3 de 2011

Just look this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/28/rumored_ubuntu_tablet/
Best Regards,
Luis E. Vásquez R.
OpenOffice.org Volunteer & Support
Este mensaje  se ha enviado desde Medellín, Colombia
*10 Años usando exitosamente OpenOffice.org  libre, seguro y abierto

* 


2011/1/3 Ian Lynch 

> On 3 January 2011 15:56, Alexander Thurgood 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Le 03/01/11 12:37, Zaphod Feeblejocks a écrit :
> >
> > >
> > > I guess if you want to buy an iPad in France, now is a good time to do
> > it!
> > >
> >
> > An iPad or any other mobile OS based device,
>
>
> ipad is hardly an OS based device. Well stretching the imagination we can
> trace the OS back to BSD but that could be said of other proprietary unix
> OSs.
>
>
> > including your telephone
> > :-) (the tax, if finally passed into law, should also affect
> > WindowsMobile phones) - the project targets embedded OSes not designed
> > to run on "normal" PC hardware. Obviously, the definition retained at
> > present is a nonsense in itself and shows just what a poor understanding
> > French MPs have of operating systems and IT in general (or rather what
> > they have been cleverly misled to understand).
> >
> > The current French government needs money, big time - the
> > mobile/embedded market is still fairly bouyant - what better way to
> > generate a revenue stream to fill the depleted coffers ? ;-)
> >
>
> I can think of several better ways. Raise the tax rate on proprietary
> software to encourage migration to open source. Overall that would save
> money as well as raise revenue. ;-) Once you have everyone shifted to FOSS
> you can tax that and effectively transfer the tax that was being paid to
> proprietary software producers to the government. That then costs no-one
> except the likes of MS who have plenty of cash and are largely outside the
> French economy in any case.
>
>
> > Alex
> >
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to 
> > discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> 
> >
> > Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ian
>
> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
> The Schools ITQ
>
> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
>
> You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
> Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
> 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
>
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


Hi Italo,

On 1/3/11 8:43 AM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote:


What's the background (for ESC) to decide what leads to the best
software for users?


I apologize for repeating myself, but the ESC will decide upon 
positive contributions, suggestions or requests. You suggest a 
feature, promote a technology, contribute a new export filter.

...

What I mean now with a real example.
What if I would propose to transform the startcenter into a individual 
desktop with drop and drag like the former integrated desktop of 
StarOffice. And I would also propose to make it choosable for users:

~ to have it in the LO-window like now the startcenter
~ to dock it like toolbars (perhaps with a constant distance from the 
dokument-window)
~ to use it like an external "container" of individual folders, files 
and links.


How would someone decide whether it were a positiv feature for LO or not?
Because no one has a crystall ball to look into the future. And it could 
be, that such a proposal is denied by LO but ten months later another 
producer of an office-suit succeeds with just such a feature.


And if it were denied, is it lost than till somebody others makes the 
same proposal years later. Or is there a system to save proposals for a 
later check under new conditions.


That's my problem with the decisions.
But it hasn't to be answered right now. I'll ask such things after the 
3.3-release again.


Greetings,
Johannes



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Barbara,

Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600,
Barbara Duprey  a écrit :

> On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote:
> > Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto:
> > [...]
> >
> >> inconsistencies. However, it's fortunately or unfortunately,
> >> should not be a problem: OOo&  LibO implement the existing and
> >> used version of MS *proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007
> >> and 2010 that are called OOXML. They're not exactly the ISO
> >> standard, far from that; feel free to call them transitional if
> >> you wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call them
> >> MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer convenience
> >> to its
> > This is the point. MS Office 2007 and 2010 doesn't implement ISO/IEC
> > 29300 also called OOXML.
> >
> > Please change the subject because it's completely messing. Call
> > simply MS XML proprietary formats.
> >
> > Davide
> 
> They don't implement the "Strict" version -- but I think we'd have a
> hard time arguing that they don't implement the "Transitional"
> version that must also be considered standard, it's documented in
> that specification, and MS wrote it to cover themselves. If we called
> these formats proprietary, we could get into real trouble.
> 

Well, the problem is that it's not that documented. Really,
Transitional OOXML was an honourable way out for MS at the ISO's JTC 1.

Basically the deal was that the strict OOXML was rumoured to be clean
(although I don't think it is and I'm not the only one) while the
transitional was "offering more features" and was more in line with the
existing and used formats used by MS Office 2007 and 2010. At this
stage we have no evidence that the transitional OOXML and the formats
used in MS office suites match, and I'm not even saying this out of bad
will against MS: it's a really important question. 

best,

-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format

2011-01-03 Thread Ian Lynch

On 3 January 2011 15:14, Italo Vignoli  wrote:

> On 1/3/11 7:38 AM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote:
>
>  Where can I read it? Is it in the next decade manifesto?
>>
>
> http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/announce/msg00016.html
>
>
>  And they are not equal. That's my problem with it at the moment.
>> I don't really understand how this democratic-meritocratic principle
>> works. And what you explain below with Microsoft, for me it is not
>> meritocratic or democratic that's an ethical aspect.
>>
>
> Democracy means that everyone has the potential to contribute,

Democracy simply means representation of the people (community). Even
established democracies don't have referendums on every issue. Party
political systems mean that there are real limits to what any individual can
contribute. I can't go and contribute directly to new legislation other than
by saying what I think and hope it will influence someone. That is not
really much different from a FOSS project.

> meritocracy means that contribution are judged by the community for their
> value, continuity, quality, etcetera.

Which is what voters do at election time with the records and manifestos of
politicians in a democracy. Of course "meritocracy" often become a political
argument - even with software.

> There are some principles though, and one of them is that contributions
> have to be constructive (FOR) and not destructive (AGAINST).

Compare with "In the national interest"

> Asking to avoid writing support for OOXML in order to bash Microsoft is
> meaningless.
>

Not meaningless but perhaps political rather than rational - but hey life is
a peculiar mixture of rational and political perspectives.

>
> Educating users about ethics related to Microsoft, OOXML and open standards
> is not a task for export filters.

In general I think this polarisation of meritocracy/democracy in FOSS is a
myth. FOSS happens because there is freedom of speech which is an
important tenant in any democracy. In the end some people make decisions and
if they get them badly wrong enough often enough the "demos" votes with its
feet. That is exactly what happened with OOo and LO. So while on this issue
I'm in favour of writing OOXML after hearing the arguments, these
discussions are important even though someone is going to be disappointed.
Let's just accept that rather than muddying the waters with the democracy
meritocracy myths.

> --
> Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
> E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org
> Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813
> Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
>
>

-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft

2011-01-03 Thread Ian Lynch

On 3 January 2011 15:56, Alexander Thurgood  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Le 03/01/11 12:37, Zaphod Feeblejocks a écrit :
>
> >
> > I guess if you want to buy an iPad in France, now is a good time to do
> it!
> >
>
> An iPad or any other mobile OS based device,

ipad is hardly an OS based device. Well stretching the imagination we can
trace the OS back to BSD but that could be said of other proprietary unix
OSs.

> including your telephone
> :-) (the tax, if finally passed into law, should also affect
> WindowsMobile phones) - the project targets embedded OSes not designed
> to run on "normal" PC hardware. Obviously, the definition retained at
> present is a nonsense in itself and shows just what a poor understanding
> French MPs have of operating systems and IT in general (or rather what
> they have been cleverly misled to understand).
>
> The current French government needs money, big time - the
> mobile/embedded market is still fairly bouyant - what better way to
> generate a revenue stream to fill the depleted coffers ? ;-)
>

I can think of several better ways. Raise the tax rate on proprietary
software to encourage migration to open source. Overall that would save
money as well as raise revenue. ;-) Once you have everyone shifted to FOSS
you can tax that and effectively transfer the tax that was being paid to
proprietary software producers to the government. That then costs no-one
except the likes of MS who have plenty of cash and are largely outside the
French economy in any case.

> Alex
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
>
>

-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


On 1/3/2011 10:26 AM, Italo Vignoli wrote:

On 1/3/11 3:40 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:


Unfortunately, this means that most user-created documents going to
those with more recent versions of Office will be handled by the MS ODF,
which is especially unfortunate for spreadsheets. If we get a complaint
about compatibility, we can (as usual) recommend using PDF if possible.
But if not, which is the better choice -- XP or OOXML? Unless I can be
fairly sure OOXML will be more satisfactory, I'll still recommend XP.
But I'm willing to be convinced to recommend (very reluctantly) OOXML.
Is there any way to assess this, or will we just have to wait and see?


I know is a pain, but is really a case by case issue.


There's some very encouraging information elsewhere in this thread about test documents that already 
exist for this. I think we may have a plan going soon!


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote:

Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto:
[...]


inconsistencies. However, it's fortunately or unfortunately, should not be a
problem: OOo&  LibO implement the existing and used version of MS
*proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007 and 2010 that are called OOXML.
They're not exactly the ISO standard, far from that; feel free to call them
transitional if you wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call
them MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer convenience to its

This is the point. MS Office 2007 and 2010 doesn't implement ISO/IEC
29300 also called OOXML.

Please change the subject because it's completely messing. Call simply
MS XML proprietary formats.

Davide


They don't implement the "Strict" version -- but I think we'd have a hard time arguing that they 
don't implement the "Transitional" version that must also be considered standard, it's documented in 
that specification, and MS wrote it to cover themselves. If we called these formats proprietary, we 
could get into real trouble.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format


Hi Italo,

On 1/3/11 7:38 AM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote:


Where can I read it? Is it in the next decade manifesto?


http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/announce/msg00016.html



Thanks for the Link. - And I could ask the next questions, but I save it 
for later.
I try to get it clearer for me till the 3.3-Release, and eventually with 
a summary of the manifesto and other important things, to have lately:

a better basis to clear things in the calm after the release
eventually a shortform of the TDF-goals for people which come new to the 
project.


To check the frame for me, in what time about could the 3.3-Release start?

...

Thank You for your patience,
Johannes

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)

Hello Michael,

Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 01:26:09 +0930,
Michael Wheatland  a écrit :

> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
>  wrote:
> > "to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org" does not seem to
> > mean anything to me. "With a view to go with Drupal" was rather:
> > with the possible option of Drupal in the long term.
> 
> Sorry, I meant to write libreoffice.org not drupal.org

ah, okay. 

> 
> > "a little bit of misinformation", Michael, is perhaps your
> > enthusiasm leading to understand things the way you would like them
> > to be :-). At this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans
> > to move to Drupal; there seems indeed to have been some early
> > misunderstanding, but if you wish the SC will clarify its position
> > (again) .  But given that I'm a member of the said SC, it might be
> > useful to you to take my words into account.
> 
> To make this clear in my mind I have listened and read the decision
> statement from the Steering Committee decision.
> 
> The conversation on the conference call:
> "I would ask the people working on Drupal to do a more detailed
> planning in the next month regarding additional services..."

right.

> There were some bits that I didn't quite understand (poor quality
> sound), but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider
> Drupal as the long term solution.

I might repeat Cor's statements here, but "many people voiced their
opinion that we should consider Drupal as the long term solution"
means: many people "think we should decide whether Drupal would be a
long term solution" . It's hardly a Steering Committee decision
requesting the use of Drupal. 
> 
> 
> The statement to the website list from the SC is as follows:
> "the CMS decision was taken: it will be Silverstripe as a starter,
> with plans to migrate to Drupal later on."
> 
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/592

"plans... later on". Not "now let's rush towards creating the
definitive Drupal website"...

> 
> I would have thought that this official statement is very clear in the
> outcome 

Obviously it is conditional, and makes clear that it's an option for
the long term. 

> and the website team has had a large group of people (larger
> than that working on the current site) working towards this end, whom
> might I say have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time.
> Clearly the implementation is still a few months off as we start to
> involve Native Language teams and other functional teams.

And to our great dismay, calls for help for the current website, which
has all the top priority, went lost in a sea of mails about the Drupal
project, and despite several mails of people explaining Drupal was just
an option. 

> 
> I hope this clarifies my point, and makes it quite clear that I am not
> just hearing what I want to. This was the official decision statement
> as communicated back to the website mailing list.
> 
Well you now see that the official decision was not a definitive
statement about Drupal, and that it was *considered* as an option.

Best,
-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 1/3/2011 4:55 AM, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote:

It may be that without explicity aiming to remove users from our sister, OOo,
aiming to take
the other 20% who do not use MSO 07 (plus those who do!) may be a more
effective way to
spread the file format. If we can get ODT used enough - through users choosing
to overlook
docx output - many MSO users may find it helpful to have LibO (or OOo)
installed also. At
some point they will wonder why they keep paying for MSO.

Unfortunately, those MSO users can easily remain unaware of the value of OOo/LibO (and other ODF
applications), because since Office 2007 SP2, Office (on Windows, with no plugins) will read and
write ODF formats. If one of these MSO users gets an ODF document from a non-MSO application, it
will open. If they don't notice compatibility problems, they will have no reason to investigate. In
many cases, though, especially with spreadsheets, there will be obvious problems. So who will get
the blame -- MSO, or the other application? Will they be likely to install the non-MSO application,
even though it's free? Will the non-MSO application user continue to use ODF, or switch to exporting
XP or OOXML formats to maintain interoperability? (Out of self-preservation, they really need to do
that; it's not clear at the moment which of these formats will be better for interoperability.)

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


On 1/3/11 3:40 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:


Unfortunately, this means that most user-created documents going to
those with more recent versions of Office will be handled by the MS ODF,
which is especially unfortunate for spreadsheets. If we get a complaint
about compatibility, we can (as usual) recommend using PDF if possible.
But if not, which is the better choice -- XP or OOXML? Unless I can be
fairly sure OOXML will be more satisfactory, I'll still recommend XP.
But I'm willing to be convinced to recommend (very reluctantly) OOXML.
Is there any way to assess this, or will we just have to wait and see?


I know is a pain, but is really a case by case issue.

--
Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org
Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813
Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons


Hi Michael,

Michael Wheatland wrote (03-01-11 16:56)

To make this clear in my mind I have listened and read the decision
statement from the Steering Committee decision.

The conversation on the conference call:
"I would ask the people working on Drupal to do a more detailed
planning in the next month regarding additional services..."
There were some bits that I didn't quite understand (poor quality
sound), but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider
Drupal as the long term solution.


'Consider' yes.


The statement to the website list from the SC is as follows:
"the CMS decision was taken: it will be Silverstripe as a starter,
with plans to migrate to Drupal later on."


'Plan' plus 'consider' plus the fact that there was in my experience 
quite some disappointment about the early proof of concept for Drupal, 
does not logically lead to the conclusion that there 'shall be a move to 
Drupal'.


On the other side: if you work in the website team and there is the 
clear conviction that the current CMS falls short for our needs and that 
Drupal will help, I see no reason why a move will not be made.

(But that is just my personal POV).

Best,
Cor

--
 - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format

2011-01-03 Thread Eduardo Moreno


El 30/12/10 11:27, Larry Gusaas escribió:

I will not support or use LibreOffice
 until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file 
format. There is absolutely no need to write in this proprietary 
format. To do so is contrary to the principle of using ODF and open 
source formats.


See the following:
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=2493&p=169740#p169507 


http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828

Unless this changes I will strongly advocate in the support groups I 
participate the people stay with OpenOffice.org and not switch to 
LibreOffice.



Thank's to LibreOffice. I can help to migrate and continue works with 
other people. Hurry to the liberty. hurry the free.


--
Mi Office genera: Seguridad, Confianza y Ahorro


J. Eduardo Moreno
TOKONHU de México
044 55 2748 4840


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


On 1/3/11 8:43 AM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote:


What's the background (for ESC) to decide what leads to the best
software for users?


I apologize for repeating myself, but the ESC will decide upon positive 
contributions, suggestions or requests. You suggest a feature, promote a 
technology, contribute a new export filter.


It does not make any sense to take a decision in order to bash a single 
company. We are in the market to promote free software and good ethics 
in a positive way.


Most office suite users are looking for software able to create and 
manage documents. They are looking for positive answers.



Or is it just a lack of communication?


I do not think it is a lack of communication. It is a different agenda: 
TDS's is FOR free software, other people's one is AGAINST Microsoft.


Bashing Microsoft in the name of ethics is a total nonsense. Ethics is a 
positive concept, and cannot be used to justify any negative action 
whatsoever.


--
Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org
Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813
Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft

2011-01-03 Thread Alexander Thurgood

Hi,

Le 03/01/11 12:37, Zaphod Feeblejocks a écrit :

> 
> I guess if you want to buy an iPad in France, now is a good time to do it!
> 

An iPad or any other mobile OS based device, including your telephone
:-) (the tax, if finally passed into law, should also affect
WindowsMobile phones) - the project targets embedded OSes not designed
to run on "normal" PC hardware. Obviously, the definition retained at
present is a nonsense in itself and shows just what a poor understanding
French MPs have of operating systems and IT in general (or rather what
they have been cleverly misled to understand).

The current French government needs money, big time - the
mobile/embedded market is still fairly bouyant - what better way to
generate a revenue stream to fill the depleted coffers ? ;-)

Alex


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons

2011-01-03 Thread Stefan Weigel

Hi,

Am 03.01.2011 16:20, schrieb Charles-H. Schulz:

> "a little bit of misinformation", Michael, is perhaps your enthusiasm
> leading to understand things the way you would like them to be :-). At
> this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans to move to Drupal;
> there seems indeed to have been some early misunderstanding, but if you
> wish the SC will clarify its position (again) .  But given that I'm a
> member of the said SC, it might be useful to you to take my words into
> account.

Micheal, this should not surprise you. I have been telling this for
weeks. But maybe, reading this from a SC member, makes the message
more creditable ;-).

Stefan

-- 
LibreOffice - Die Freiheit nehm' ich mir!

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
 wrote:
> "to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org" does not seem to mean
> anything to me. "With a view to go with Drupal" was rather: with the
> possible option of Drupal in the long term.

Sorry, I meant to write libreoffice.org not drupal.org

> "a little bit of misinformation", Michael, is perhaps your enthusiasm
> leading to understand things the way you would like them to be :-). At
> this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans to move to Drupal;
> there seems indeed to have been some early misunderstanding, but if you
> wish the SC will clarify its position (again) .  But given that I'm a
> member of the said SC, it might be useful to you to take my words into
> account.

To make this clear in my mind I have listened and read the decision
statement from the Steering Committee decision.

The conversation on the conference call:
"I would ask the people working on Drupal to do a more detailed
planning in the next month regarding additional services..."
There were some bits that I didn't quite understand (poor quality
sound), but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider
Drupal as the long term solution.

The statement to the website list from the SC is as follows:
"the CMS decision was taken: it will be Silverstripe as a starter,
with plans to migrate to Drupal later on."

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/592

I would have thought that this official statement is very clear in the
outcome and the website team has had a large group of people (larger
than that working on the current site) working towards this end, whom
might I say have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time.
Clearly the implementation is still a few months off as we start to
involve Native Language teams and other functional teams.

I hope this clarifies my point, and makes it quite clear that I am not
just hearing what I want to. This was the official decision statement
as communicated back to the website mailing list.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [steering-discuss] Update on the Foundation

2011-01-03 Thread drew

> > > 
> > > We finally came to the following decision. We will incorporate a
> > > Foundation in Germany (called "Stiftung" in German) in early 2011. A
> > > german foundation will provide us with many advantages of various
> > > kinds, among them, 100% tax-deductible donations. 
> > 
> > Hello Charles, et al.
> > 
> > "100% tax-deductible donations." 
> > 
> > Just to be clear here, you mean that donations to this foundation will
> > be deductible by the individual making the donation?
> > 

> Donations, provided you are under the German tax law (you live in
> Germany or have a subsidiary in German) will be 100% tax deductible by
> you. That fiscal advantage might, depending on the ongoing legal works
> surrounding one common law for European Foundation, be extended to
> other european memberstates. 

Charles,

Thanks, that is what I assumed and just wanted to be sure.

> 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > In order to incorporate there we will however need some initial
> > > capital and resources (around fifty thousand (50,000) Euros). If we
> > > do not manage to collect this sum in a reasonable amount of time,
> > > we will switch to our second best option and incorporate a charity
> > > in the United Kingdom, which is much cheaper. 
> > 
> > Could you put some sort of time-frame to "reasonable"?
> > 
> > [just your folks thoughts on what reasonable is here]
> 
> I don't really know, but if we're stuck with 3 thousand bucks at the
> end of February it might be time to reconsider options. (that's just my
> own perception).

Looking at the account statements Thomas has been publishing - 

What 2022 [with inflation that could slip to 2030, I suppose] isn't
going to be soon enough for you? :-)

Still with the decision being to form in Germany and a price tag of
50,000 Euros it seems that a bit more then two months would be in order.

When you folks came to the decision there must of been some idea of
where the monies would come from, yes? Is it assumed that most will come
from a small number of large donations then and two months being
sufficient time then to garner actual donations or pledges from these
few large sponsors?

Thanks again

Drew




-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format


On 1/3/11 7:38 AM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote:


Where can I read it? Is it in the next decade manifesto?


http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/announce/msg00016.html


And they are not equal. That's my problem with it at the moment.
I don't really understand how this democratic-meritocratic principle
works. And what you explain below with Microsoft, for me it is not
meritocratic or democratic that's an ethical aspect.


Democracy means that everyone has the potential to contribute, 
meritocracy means that contribution are judged by the community for 
their value, continuity, quality, etcetera. There are some principles 
though, and one of them is that contributions have to be constructive 
(FOR) and not destructive (AGAINST). Asking to avoid writing support for 
OOXML in order to bash Microsoft is meaningless.


Educating users about ethics related to Microsoft, OOXML and open 
standards is not a task for export filters.


--
Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org
Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813
Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)

Michael,

Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 00:28:58 +0930,
Michael Wheatland  a écrit :

> On 03/01/2011 8:46 PM, "Charles-H. Schulz" <
> charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:58:18 -,
> > Zaphod Feeblejocks  a écrit :
> >
> > > On 3 Jan 2011 at 17:29, Michael Wheatland wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page?
> > > > >
> > > > > Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they
> > > > > know functionality can be extended?
> > > > >
> > > > > Could addons be clearly posted in the menus?
> > > > >
> > > > > Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a
> > > > > pack of the most popular ones be compiled?  Could the
> > > > > most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional extra included
> > > > > with the download?
> > > >
> > > > Zaphod,
> > > > I have some good news for you. The website team is already
> > > > tackling this with the Drupal implementation.
> > > >
> > > > In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is
> > > > earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice).
> > > > The website team has been busy building the site over at a
> > > > temporary domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org
> > >
> > > Great work!
> >
> > While I do thank Michael for its great work I believe there's a
> > slight misunderstanding here: Michael's own exploratory work might
> > be used one day for the LibreOffice website, but it is at this
> > stage not considered for an "upgrade".
> >
> > best,
> > Charles.
> >
> > >
> > > zf
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Charles-H. Schulz
> > Membre du Comité exécutif
> > The Document Foundation.
> 
> Charles,
> Far from being 'my' exploration work, the majority of the website
> team has contributed towards this project after the Steering
> Committee discussion and the outcome of which, I am paraphrasing, to
> implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org with a view to go with
> Drupal long term.

"to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org" does not seem to mean
anything to me. "With a view to go with Drupal" was rather: with the
possible option of Drupal in the long term. 

> 
> The progress made by many of the contributing members has been
> fantastic, and although I have been the most vocal of the website
> development team regarding the implementation of a community building
> and tooling site there are many other people who have done fantastic
> work.
> 
> I will be applying to the Steering Committee soon to set a target
> date for implementation in order to focus the website team on a
> tangible goal.

Well there will be no target, I'm afraid. 

> 
> There does seem to be a little bit of misinformation out there
> regarding this SC decision, but it is quite clear if you listen to
> the decision outcome statement on the recording of the SC meeting.
> 
> I am sure this will be clarified when the website team applies for a
> further decision on implementation.


"a little bit of misinformation", Michael, is perhaps your enthusiasm
leading to understand things the way you would like them to be :-). At
this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans to move to Drupal;
there seems indeed to have been some early misunderstanding, but if you
wish the SC will clarify its position (again) .  But given that I'm a
member of the said SC, it might be useful to you to take my words into
account.

Best,
Charles. 

> 
> Michael Wheatland
> 



-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)

Todd,

Le Mon, 3 Jan 2011 09:50:36 -0500,
todd rme  a écrit :

> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Michael Wheatland
>  wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Zaphod Feeblejocks
> >  wrote:
> >> On 2 Jan 2011 at 9:59, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
> >>
> >>> I also agree that ANY write-to docx should be an add-on, and not
> >>> part of the vanilla release.
> >>
> >> Hi Craig,
> >>
> >> I have a concern about the Addons.  In my 10+ years of using
> >> OpenOffice/StarOffice, the inclusion of addons was a great idea.
> >>  However, the marketing of addons was not so good - hidden away in
> >> a place that you can find once, but not so easily find again.
> >>
> >> Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page?
> >>
> >> Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know
> >> functionality can be extended?
> >>
> >> Could addons be clearly posted in the menus?
> >>
> >> Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack of
> >> the most popular ones be compiled?  Could the most-frequent-addons
> >> pack even be an optional extra included with the download?
> >
> > Zaphod,
> > I have some good news for you. The website team is already tackling
> > this with the Drupal implementation.
> >
> > In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is
> > earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice).
> > The website team has been busy building the site over at a temporary
> > domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org
> >
> > Although the site theme is only temporary, you can see most of the
> > site sections operating. The site will include an 'Extensions
> > Library' designed similar to the Firefox addins site.
> >
> > It is not finished but you can see our progress here:
> > http://www.libreofficeaustralia.org/download/extensions
> > The implementation of categories will be the next step, followed by
> > making the layout of the displays a little more beautiful.
> >
> > The development site is almost ready for beta testers, so if you
> > wish to have a look and suggest any changes please feel free to let
> > us know over on the website mailing list.
> >
> > Michael Wheatland
> 
> So libreoffice is not planning on using the already-established
> opendesktop.org websites for distributing its extensions?
> 

At this stage no change has been planned, we are using the opendesktop
infrastructure but for the extensions web site no plans of any sort has
been made. (We should, though!)

Best


-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)

On 03/01/2011 8:46 PM, "Charles-H. Schulz" <
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:58:18 -,
> Zaphod Feeblejocks  a écrit :
>
> > On 3 Jan 2011 at 17:29, Michael Wheatland wrote:
> >
> > > > Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page?
> > > >
> > > > Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know
> > > > functionality can be extended?
> > > >
> > > > Could addons be clearly posted in the menus?
> > > >
> > > > Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack
> > > > of the most popular ones be compiled?  Could the
> > > > most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional extra included with
> > > > the download?
> > >
> > > Zaphod,
> > > I have some good news for you. The website team is already tackling
> > > this with the Drupal implementation.
> > >
> > > In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is
> > > earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice).
> > > The website team has been busy building the site over at a temporary
> > > domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org
> >
> > Great work!
>
> While I do thank Michael for its great work I believe there's a slight
> misunderstanding here: Michael's own exploratory work might be used one
> day for the LibreOffice website, but it is at this stage not considered
> for an "upgrade".
>
> best,
> Charles.
>
> >
> > zf
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Charles-H. Schulz
> Membre du Comité exécutif
> The Document Foundation.

Charles,
Far from being 'my' exploration work, the majority of the website team has
contributed towards this project after the Steering Committee discussion and
the outcome of which, I am paraphrasing, to implement the Silverstripe CMS
on Drupal.org with a view to go with Drupal long term.

The progress made by many of the contributing members has been fantastic,
and although I have been the most vocal of the website development team
regarding the implementation of a community building and tooling site there
are many other people who have done fantastic work.

I will be applying to the Steering Committee soon to set a target date for
implementation in order to focus the website team on a tangible goal.

There does seem to be a little bit of misinformation out there regarding
this SC decision, but it is quite clear if you listen to the decision
outcome statement on the recording of the SC meeting.

I am sure this will be clarified when the website team applies for a further
decision on implementation.

Michael Wheatland

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)

2011-01-03 Thread todd rme

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Michael Wheatland
 wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Zaphod Feeblejocks  wrote:
>> On 2 Jan 2011 at 9:59, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
>>
>>> I also agree that ANY write-to docx should be an add-on, and not part of
>>> the vanilla release.
>>
>> Hi Craig,
>>
>> I have a concern about the Addons.  In my 10+ years of using 
>> OpenOffice/StarOffice, the
>> inclusion of addons was a great idea.  However, the marketing of addons was 
>> not so good -
>> hidden away in a place that you can find once, but not so easily find again.
>>
>> Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page?
>>
>> Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know 
>> functionality can be
>> extended?
>>
>> Could addons be clearly posted in the menus?
>>
>> Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack of the most 
>> popular
>> ones be compiled?  Could the most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional 
>> extra
>> included with the download?
>
> Zaphod,
> I have some good news for you. The website team is already tackling
> this with the Drupal implementation.
>
> In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is
> earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice).
> The website team has been busy building the site over at a temporary
> domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org
>
> Although the site theme is only temporary, you can see most of the
> site sections operating. The site will include an 'Extensions Library'
> designed similar to the Firefox addins site.
>
> It is not finished but you can see our progress here:
> http://www.libreofficeaustralia.org/download/extensions
> The implementation of categories will be the next step, followed by
> making the layout of the displays a little more beautiful.
>
> The development site is almost ready for beta testers, so if you wish
> to have a look and suggest any changes please feel free to let us know
> over on the website mailing list.
>
> Michael Wheatland

So libreoffice is not planning on using the already-established
opendesktop.org websites for distributing its extensions?

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

On 1/2/2011 6:34 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:

On 1/3/11 1:12 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote:

I was under the impression that the vanilla versions of Office since
2007 SP2 could read and write ODF formats, with no need to install any
plugins (but with their own special twist on ODF). From what you say
here, that is not true; I haven't installed Office in a long time, and
don't intend to, so I didn't know that ODF support was not automatic.

ODF support is built in since MS Office 2007 SP2 for Windows. MS Office for MacOS does not support
ODF, and there is not a plugin availble. The older version of MS Office do not support ODF, but
there is a plugin available.

We all know that Microsoft is trying to slow down ANY standard format, because format lock in is a
long time strategy.

I do not know if you are familiar with Gandhi statement: "First they ignore you, then they laugh
at you, then they fight you, then you win".

This is exactly what is happening for office suites.

Gandhi won over the British empire being respectful of law and being an advocate of freedom. I do
not have his moral strength, but I do follow his lesson.

Very nice, Italo, and thanks for the information about ODF support in Office. We seem to be at "then
they fight you" so it's looking good!

Unfortunately, this means that most user-created documents going to those with more recent versions
of Office will be handled by the MS ODF, which is especially unfortunate for spreadsheets. If we get
a complaint about compatibility, we can (as usual) recommend using PDF if possible. But if not,
which is the better choice -- XP or OOXML? Unless I can be fairly sure OOXML will be more
satisfactory, I'll still recommend XP. But I'm willing to be convinced to recommend (very
reluctantly) OOXML. Is there any way to assess this, or will we just have to wait and see?

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

2011-01-03 Thread Mark Preston

On 02/01/2011 18:29, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2011-01-02 12:07 PM, Mark Preston wrote:
>> Please remember that both LibO and OpenO can already *read* the
>> formats and the issue is whether or not it is practical or pragmatic
>> to put effort into developing something to *write* the OOXML form.
> 
> Eh? It already can write them. Why go backwards? There definitely needs
> to be a warning when doing the Save-As, but going backwards (ie,
> removing the ability to write them) would be counter-productive at best.
> 
I perhaps put that badly this time. My apologies. My concern is not so
much with what we do, but with what we can do *well* and effectively.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

2011-01-03 Thread Mark Preston

I actually agree wholeheartedly with Italo here - please do not try
to hamstring the developers with your (or our) own preferences! The
idea of community discussion is to guide developers, not to instruct
them to do the impractical or impossible and equally not to instruct
them (for whatever reason) *not* to do what can be done.

On the other hand, though I have already done so in another message, I
am more than happy to discuss why some options are more or less
pragmatic for developers and will do so inline with Italo's comments
as quoted below:-

On 02/01/2011 18:47, Italo Vignoli wrote:
> On 1/2/11 7:15 PM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
> 
>> No, that was not the point. Italo Vignoli wrote: "LibreOffice
>> writes OOXML and will write OOXML, and this is not under
>> discussion." That is the point I objected to.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I am a member of the Steering Committee, and I totally second this 
> decision just because it makes sense for the users (as I have tried
> to explain in another message). LibreOffice is the office suite
> with the widest document format support, and this is a plus.
> 
This is, and long has been, a *major* plus for both OpenOffice and now
for LibreOffice - we do need to keep this as an objective.
> 
> As long as OOXML is a standard recognized by ISO, it makes sense
> to support it completely. This is different from the fact that we
> are trying to make ODF the only winning standard, and that we are
> telling people that they should not use OOXML.
> 
Again, this is exactly the point I also made - although I did perhaps
attribute a little more evil to Microsoft by suggesting the issues
with OOXML may be a deliberate move to capture that standards
compliant high-ground from us.
>
>> [snip]
> 
> TDF is a community driven project, not a mailing list driven
> project. Community is not just writing in a mailing list, is a lot
> different and a lot more than that. I do not think that we ever
> gave the perception that this is a mailing list driven project.
> 
Well said, Italo!

Where the wider community has something relevant to say on this, it
should begin from the presumption that we somehow *will* write OOXML
to the best practical ability of the developers. That, not personal
preferences, is the real issue.

I remain convinced that it is for all practical purposes not possible
to write OOXML in the currently active Microsoft format since that is
both a rapidly moving target and might leave us open to claims of
patent-breaking unless we can demonstrate clear reverse-engineering of
the format. Even if we could do that, we would then face the problem
of the target rapidly moving away from us.

Rather than play a "catch up to Microsoft" game, it remains my view
that we should write OOXML in the ISO-standard format for so long as
that standard lasts. That gives Microsoft the chance to either catch
up and use the standard they set themselves or to change the standard
so that they can meet it. In either case, LibreOffice would be ahead
of the game Microsoft plays rather than behind, provided we do make
sure to pop up a warning to remind users we are using the standard and
Microsoft may not yet be able to deal with it.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] docx export

2011-01-03 Thread Philippe . VIENT


Accusé de réception
   
   Votre  Re: [tdf-discuss] docx export
   document
   :   
   
   a été  philippe.vi...@cnieg.fr  
   reçu par
   :   
   
   le :   03/01/2011 13:15:11  
   



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft

On 3 Jan 2011 at 14:12, sophie wrote:

> Hi Zaphod,
> On 01/01/2011 20:52, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote:
> > Did you know that anything running Linux in France is not a computer?  The 
> > outworking of
> > this is a skewed market in favour of MS operating systems, and therefore in 
> > favour of MS
> > applications.  This DOES affect LibO.
> 
> I would not be so affirmative concerning this news. The deputies (all of 
[snip]

> http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/tech-medias/actu/0201007324477.htm
> http://www.frandroid.com/52983/copie-privee-les-tablettes-seront-maintenant-taxees-en-france/

Bonjour Sophie,

Thank you for making this clear.  

If I have understood, some devices are not taxed because they run a version of 
an 
operating system intended for desktop PCs (Windows).  I imagine there will be 
lots of 
discussion in France about this - and also here in UK!  The French system of 
taxing portable 
media has been discussed as something we might do also and this 'tablet tax' 
might be 
attractive to some people.

I guess if you want to buy an iPad in France, now is a good time to do it!

Merci,

zf

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)

Hello everyone,

Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:58:18 -,
Zaphod Feeblejocks  a écrit :

> On 3 Jan 2011 at 17:29, Michael Wheatland wrote:
> 
> > > Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page?
> > >
> > > Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know
> > > functionality can be extended?
> > >
> > > Could addons be clearly posted in the menus?
> > >
> > > Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack
> > > of the most popular ones be compiled?  Could the
> > > most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional extra included with
> > > the download?
> > 
> > Zaphod,
> > I have some good news for you. The website team is already tackling
> > this with the Drupal implementation.
> > 
> > In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is
> > earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice).
> > The website team has been busy building the site over at a temporary
> > domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org
> 
> Great work!

While I do thank Michael for its great work I believe there's a slight
misunderstanding here: Michael's own exploratory work might be used one
day for the LibreOffice website, but it is at this stage not considered
for an "upgrade".

best,
Charles. 

> 
> zf
> 



-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft

2011-01-03 Thread sophie

Hi Zaphod,
On 01/01/2011 20:52, Zaphod Feeblejocks wrote:

Did you know that anything running Linux in France is not a computer? The
outworking of
this is a skewed market in favour of MS operating systems, and therefore in
favour of MS
applications. This DOES affect LibO.

I would not be so affirmative concerning this news. The deputies (all of
them) at the National Assembly are using a Kubuntu system. The whole
National Gendarmerie has migrated under Ubuntu. Currently there is more
than 400 000 desktops under OOo in the French government.
So even if it's not the first time that this government take some
strange and contradictory decisions about open source, I would be
cautious about the comprehension of this news.
Currently the taxation that the Govt would like to put in place is
related to the private copy and is depending on the size of the memory
on the device. They wanted to apply this taxes to the devices running
their own OS. This is why Windows is excluded which is quite different
from what the journalist wrote.

There is an appeal to the state council and a vote on the 12th of January.
If you read French, there are articles here:
http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/tech-medias/actu/0201007324477.htm
http://www.frandroid.com/52983/copie-privee-les-tablettes-seront-maintenant-taxees-en-france/

There are some strong and very political Linux associations in France,
like April and Aful that are following this.

Kind regards
Sophie

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)

On 3 Jan 2011 at 17:29, Michael Wheatland wrote:

> > Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page?
> >
> > Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know 
> > functionality can be
> > extended?
> >
> > Could addons be clearly posted in the menus?
> >
> > Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack of the most 
> > popular
> > ones be compiled?  Could the most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional 
> > extra
> > included with the download?
> 
> Zaphod,
> I have some good news for you. The website team is already tackling
> this with the Drupal implementation.
> 
> In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is
> earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice).
> The website team has been busy building the site over at a temporary
> domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org

Great work!

zf

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

> On 03/01/11 04:10, Larry Gusaas wrote:
> > Including the ability to write OOXML format is a political decision
> > driven by the Novell and Microsoft marketing agreement. User experience?
> > Ask that question of any user of older versions of Word after they
> > receive a .docx document and are unable to open it.
> 
> Indeed, I have experienced this myself when trying to send documents.
> However a blanket ban on OOXML would, in the long run, be a disadvantage
> to *LibreOffice*. Whether you appreciate it or not the older document
> formats (.doc .xls .ppt) are going to fade away as Microsoft pushes its

I last checked the market-share numbers for office suites in mid 2010, when in 
discussion 
with my organisation about whether to go to MSO 07 throughout the campus or 
drop MSO 
completely.

The figures were, IIRC

MSO 2007 - 60% globally
MSO 97-2003 - 20% globally 
OOo 3.x - 20% globally

The numbers tilt a bit on different continents.  MSO is more popular in 
corporate America.  
OOo is more popular (around 30% or more) in Europe - the number increases as 
you head 
east.

The MSO 97-2003 users are important.  Many are not attracted by the Office 
07/10 
interface, or cannot afford to upgrade.  However, as time goes on they will see 
more .docx 
appearing and may feel forced to upgrade, if only to maintain access to shared 
data.

Having something that is not MSO but that has an interface like the one they 
are used to 
should be very attractive for them.  In UK, MS has dropped the price of MSO to 
students a 
lot in recent years - £60 two years ago, under £40 today from the 
software4students reseller.  
A lot of these 'student' editions end up in small businesses.  We should be 
targeting these 
people.

When Google Chrome was launched, people thought it might cripple Firefox.  In 
reality, a 
small number of Firefox users switched, while many IE users who were not 
attracted by FF 
went to Chrome.  Some statistics now put IE at less than 50% of the market.

If LibO does everything OOo does and little else, the project would seem to 
have little point.  
If LibO embraces functionality and interface features that OOo does not have, 
it may be that 
our growth is only in part from OOo users (most of whom are happy with OOo), 
but mostly 
from MSO 97-03 users.

It may be that without explicity aiming to remove users from our sister, OOo, 
aiming to take 
the other 20% who do not use MSO 07 (plus those who do!) may be a more 
effective way to 
spread the file format.  If we can get ODT used enough - through users choosing 
to overlook 
docx output - many MSO users may find it helpful to have LibO (or OOo) 
installed also.  At 
some point they will wonder why they keep paying for MSO.  

zf

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] docx export

2011-01-03 Thread João Rebelo

In my opinion should be made justice to the name "Libre", if is
LibreOffice give to the user the freedom of choice, without adicional
dialog, if he configures the documents to be saved as doc / docx
shouldn't be pushed to adicional dialogs, for the user the beaver of the
application should be the some when he saves in odf or doc/docx

João Rebelo 

On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 10:12 +, yahoo-pier_andreit wrote:

> Il 03/01/2011 10:46, Michael Wheatland ha scritto:
> > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:33 PM, yahoo-pier_andreit
> >  wrote:
> >> Il 01/01/2011 20:29, Wolf Halton ha scritto:
> >>> That looks like a good message. A direct "save this as a .doc now" button
> >>> inside the dialog might be helpful for users as well.
> >>>
> >> Yes it is a good message but I still prefere to put the doc docx end
> >> everything not related to standard odf in an Export menu voice, even
> >> with messages like that.
> > 
> > Keeping in mind that your average joe end user is looking to 'save'
> > his file, not 'export' it.
> > Moving doc and docx file save to the export menu results in another
> > thing to teach the end user rather than it being intuitive.
> 
> Yes I know, but I think it is easy to learn for squared average joe end
> user,
> 
> > 
> > I support a warning message for any and all exports, but we should
> > keep it as simple as possible for end users.
> > 
> 
> Yes, I think so, an example is GIMP, the image modifier software, when
> you want to save in jpeg format it asks you to export
> 
> > It is also important that LibreOffice does not recognise an
> > export/save to doc/docx as a 'save' but rather an export so the
> > program will prompt the user to save in ODF when closed.
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
Melhores cumprimentos
João Rebelo
joao.reb...@pchouse.pt

Siga-nos no:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/PChouse-Competencias-Informaticas/16736044642?v=wall

PCHouse – Reflexão, Estudos e Sistemas Informáticos, Lda
 Rua Heróis de Quionga, 64-C * 1170-180 LISBOA
  Telf. +351-218162999 +351-218144944 (Fax disponível em qualquer dos
   números) 
 e-mail: ge...@pchouse.pt * url: http://www.pchouse.pt

   AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDADE
   Esta mensagem de correio electrónico e qualquer dos seus ficheiros
anexos, caso existam, são confidenciais e destinados apenas à(s)
 pessoa(s) ou entidade(s) acima referida(s), podendo conter informação
 confidencial, privilegiada, a qual não deverá ser divulgada, copiada,
  gravada ou distribuída nos termos da lei vigente. Se não é o
destinatário da mensagem, ou se ela lhe foi enviada por engano,
 agradecemos que não faça uso ou divulgação da mesma. A distribuição ou
   utilização da informação nela contida é interdita. Se recebeu esta
   mensagem por engano, por favor avise-nos de imediato, por correio
electrónico, para o endereço acima e apague este e-mail do seu sistema.
Obrigado

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] docx export

2011-01-03 Thread yahoo-pier_andreit

Il 03/01/2011 10:46, Michael Wheatland ha scritto:
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:33 PM, yahoo-pier_andreit
>  wrote:
>> Il 01/01/2011 20:29, Wolf Halton ha scritto:
>>> That looks like a good message. A direct "save this as a .doc now" button
>>> inside the dialog might be helpful for users as well.
>>>
>> Yes it is a good message but I still prefere to put the doc docx end
>> everything not related to standard odf in an Export menu voice, even
>> with messages like that.
> 
> Keeping in mind that your average joe end user is looking to 'save'
> his file, not 'export' it.
> Moving doc and docx file save to the export menu results in another
> thing to teach the end user rather than it being intuitive.

Yes I know, but I think it is easy to learn for squared average joe end
user,

> 
> I support a warning message for any and all exports, but we should
> keep it as simple as possible for end users.
> 

Yes, I think so, an example is GIMP, the image modifier software, when
you want to save in jpeg format it asks you to export

> It is also important that LibreOffice does not recognise an
> export/save to doc/docx as a 'save' but rather an export so the
> program will prompt the user to save in ODF when closed.
> 


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] docx export

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:33 PM, yahoo-pier_andreit
 wrote:
> Il 01/01/2011 20:29, Wolf Halton ha scritto:
>> That looks like a good message. A direct "save this as a .doc now" button
>> inside the dialog might be helpful for users as well.
>>
> Yes it is a good message but I still prefere to put the doc docx end
> everything not related to standard odf in an Export menu voice, even
> with messages like that.

Keeping in mind that your average joe end user is looking to 'save'
his file, not 'export' it.
Moving doc and docx file save to the export menu results in another
thing to teach the end user rather than it being intuitive.

I support a warning message for any and all exports, but we should
keep it as simple as possible for end users.

It is also important that LibreOffice does not recognise an
export/save to doc/docx as a 'save' but rather an export so the
program will prompt the user to save in ODF when closed.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[tdf-discuss] LO 3.3 RC 2 - Colour for insert columns and rows in Writer


Hello,

it's about a table in writer and the icons to insert columns and rows.
The colour now is yellow. I find it not a good choice because it's a 
pale kind of yellow and not good to see.

What about a more saturated yellow or a kind of blue or purple or orange?

LO 3.3 RC2 with XP pro

Greetings,
Johannes


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


> perhaps strict OOXML) which should (eventually) become strict OOXML. Now
> I assume nobody has an issue with strict OOXML (which is, as I

It's not open, that's the problem.

In the 4,000 page document that members of ISO somehow accepted, there's a lot 
of 
reference to proprietary stuff.

See:
http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/
http://www.noooxml.org/


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format


On 1/3/11 8:03 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:


So pointing out the Novell/Microsoft marketing agreement that led to the
inclusion of writing to OOXML would not be a positive contribution?


I will repeat the concept for the last time, as it looks like you have 
real problem in understanding it. It might be because my English is far 
from perfect, but it looks like you do not understand even if there are 
English native speakers telling the same thing.


We all know the Novell/Microsoft agreement. Only a small percentage of 
TDF founders is involved with Novell and most of the others - including 
me - are active opponents of OOXML as a document format. I speak at 
conferences to explain the disadvantages of using OOXML, I write about 
it, I am featured in the press.


During the standardization process of OOXML, I have participated in 
standards committees in order to try to stop the process or to make the 
standard a better one. Charles Schulz has done the same in France. We 
all know the story.


So long for the concept.

TDF was born as a software project to serve the user. Therefore, the 
right attitute for a positive contribution would have been the opposite 
from yours: i.e. not writing OOXML would be an advantage for the user, 
because...


Unfortunately, the thread was started on the basis that writing OOXML 
was equal to supporting Microsoft, and that LibreOffice should not 
support Microsoft.


As I have told several times, a negative attitude against anyone - being 
an infividual, an entity, a government body, or a corporation - is not 
considered a positive contribution.


I hope it is clear now, I will not write it again.


Which version of OOXML does LibreOffice write to? The official standard
approved version? Or one of the proprietary Microsoft versions? Which
one? Or are these not positive inquiries?


Charles has explained that LibreOffice writes OOXML transitional, i.e. 
the format supported by MS Office today.



How about commenting on the articles criticizing OOXML? Oh right, that
is not positive either. Besides it contravenes the Novell/Microsoft
agreement.


I have written articles, spoken at conferences, provided statements 
criticizing OOXML. I have never seen something similart from you.



Any comment on the Novell/Microsoft marketing agreement and how it
affects the development of LibreOffice? Or would that not be positive
either?


If you have a personal agenda against Microsoft, there are many places 
where your agenda is going to be considered a positive one. Here we do 
not share this AGAINST concept, and we consider any personal agenda 
AGAINST someone as useless and extremely negative for TDF.


--
Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org
Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813
Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

2011-01-03 Thread Davide Dozza

Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto:
[...]

> inconsistencies. However, it's fortunately or unfortunately, should not be a
> problem: OOo & LibO implement the existing and used version of MS
> *proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007 and 2010 that are called OOXML.
> They're not exactly the ISO standard, far from that; feel free to call them
> transitional if you wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call
> them MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer convenience to its

This is the point. MS Office 2007 and 2010 doesn't implement ISO/IEC
29300 also called OOXML.

Please change the subject because it's completely messing. Call simply
MS XML proprietary formats.

Davide


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] docx export

2011-01-03 Thread yahoo-pier_andreit

Il 01/01/2011 20:29, Wolf Halton ha scritto:
> That looks like a good message. A direct "save this as a .doc now" button
> inside the dialog might be helpful for users as well.
> 
Yes it is a good message but I still prefere to put the doc docx end
everything not related to standard odf in an Export menu voice, even
with messages like that.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft

2011-01-03 Thread yahoo-pier_andreit

Il 01/01/2011 18:52, Zaphod Feeblejocks ha scritto:
> Did you know that anything running Linux in France is not a computer?  The 
> outworking of 
> this is a skewed market in favour of MS operating systems, and therefore in 
> favour of MS 
> applications.  This DOES affect LibO.
> 
> 
> 
> From: http://tinyurl.com/33ynbv7
> 
> "Microsoft apparently has quite a following in the French government, which 
> has recently 
> decided to tax tablets...but only those that aren´t running a Windows 
> operating system.
> 
> "It has been the case for some time now that France has taxed mp3 players in 
> an attempt to 
> compensate for piracy of media, but according to French magazine Numerama, 
> that 
> existing legislation does not extend to computers.
> 
> "As a result, the government needed a way to define what devices qualify as 
> computers, 
> which led to the decision to deem a device a computer only if it runs 
> Microsoft Windows. 
> This means that, as far as the French government is concerned, a tablet 
> running any other 
> operating system -- including Linux, Mac OS, or Android -- is just a device 
> used by pirates 
> who need to be taxed."
> 

incredible :-(( I hope Italy will not copy this as seem is cpiyng the
hadopi three strike

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons