To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=57408
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 9 12:14:37 -0800
2006 ---
OK, so make the re-assignment. It makes no difference whether this is a stock
feature or whether it is something that a user, or law firm IT person, can add
to the context menu.
So, by all means, make whatever re-assignment may be necessary to have the
points here set out in a form that is discussable by the developer/programmers.
Just note that there seems to be an underlying capability that also needs to be
looked at, to whit: in a "small capped" citation, the first small-capped
character also needs to be an Initial Cap. So, the resulting syntax has to be
as follows to be acceptable by a court or government agency:
<"Capitalized" first character><"small letter" height capitalized character>
<"small letter" height capitalized character> <"small letter" height capitalized
character><"small letter" height capitalized character>,...etc.
In other words, in WordPerfect, for example, the user steps in accomplishing the
necessary legal formatting are as follows:
1. Highlight the word to be formatted;
2. Choose Initial caps from the Edit Menu;
3. Choose Small caps from the Edit menu (to make ALL characters, INCLUDING the
Initial Cap, so-called "small caps.")
In that regard, it is not "absolutely" necessary to include the Initial cap and
small cap commands on the context menu per se (although this would really speed
up the procedure).
The bottom line is that lawyers and legal secretaries need to be able, in a
multi-word legal treatise title (citation of authority) to be able to preserve
the initial cap in each word of the title and have all characters in each word
of the title nevertheless be "small capped."
Sorry, but this is a significant impediment to using OOo in legal writing and in
government technical legal writing.
Second, the model that you want to emulate is WordPerfect and NOT MSWord.
Attorneys do not typically use MSWord inasmuch as it is NOT a text stream, SGML
technology that results in GPO, press ready copy for printing. That is why the
Department of Justice and other government agencies still use WordPerfect and
NOT MSWord. Federal judges have been bouncing back MSWord docs because the work
product does not comply with GPO printing specs as reflected in local court
federal rules. MSWord is a business word processor. It works poorly as a legal
word processor.
For more information regarding the difference in the text stream and "fields and
records" technologies employed respectively by WordPerfect and MSWord/OOo, see
this thread at this linnk to material in the OOo Forums:
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=25712&highlight=
This thread also includes some discussion on how legal writing requirements
differ from other forms of technical writing. Since most computer folk are
laymen when it comes to technical legal writing, just as most law folk are
laymen when it comes to computer programming, it might be useful for someone on
the development team to get up to speed on what is actually required in legal
writing end product performance out at the user desktops.
As I write this, there is NO substitute for WordPerfect (Lawyers are NOT going
to struggle with something like LaTex -- law is a high speed, "pressure"
profession; a word processor is only a mere tool, like a wheelbarrow is to a
gardener; LaTex and solutions like LaTex can't ever be usable in a production
work environment like a law practice). All well and good; BUT, WordPerfect, as
a result of Microsoft's illegal tying, under the antitrust laws of the U.S. of
MSWord to PC's during 1995 and 1996, not only dropped WordPerfect's use share
from about 90% to somewhere down around 5%, but also seems to have doomed
WordPerfect to a perpetual state of financial instability. There is a HUGE hole
in the market here (particularly among the legal profession) for OOo to fill by
adding some discrete features that allow it -- whether through some individual
customization capabilities or stock features -- to perform according to legal
writing tech specs and standards.
The goal here is to get OOo up and ready for use in law and government offices
for technical legal writing. When that is done, you watch: OOo will take off
like a rocket in popularity, and you will have a much easier time in getting
government agencies and law firms and organizations (such as the American Bar
Association) to adopt it as an "acceptable" alternative.
All we can do, obviously, is simply alert you guys to items we notice as we test
use OOo. Right now, we still use WordPerfect, as do most lawyers; but we are
hoping the legal capability will be developed for OOo so that the financial
viccisitudes of WordPerfect, as well as its inability, for patent and copyright
reasons, to port to Linux, will become irrelevant.
"Most" attorneys
