Standards are there for information exchange. Therefore, good
practice requires that there are (at least) two independent
implementations of the standard.
(This is what is severely missing with the OpenDoc (OOo2)
standard.)
That's what I mean, we've got, what? Two office suites using
On 9/23/05, Charles Marcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've been using OOo2 exclusively in our office with essentially ZERO
problems for the last 6 months, so don't know where that 'mythological
beast' comment came from. The dev builds of OOo2 have been *much* more
stable than *any* of the
Chad Smith wrote:
On 9/23/05, Charles Marcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've been using OOo2 exclusively in our office with essentially ZERO
problems for the last 6 months, so don't know where that 'mythological
beast' comment came from. The dev builds of OOo2 have been *much* more
stable than
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 15:38 -0400, Chad Smith wrote:
On 9/23/05, Charles Marcus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've been using OOo2 exclusively in our office with essentially ZERO
problems for the last 6 months, so don't know where that 'mythological
beast' comment came from. The dev builds of
On Wed, September 21, 2005 23:38, Randomthots wrote:
But I'm not quite sure why a Dell would be any more proprietary than
anything you could roll-your-own.
Lucky you.
I can tell you from experience Dell's are way more quirky than others
(brand or whiteboxes). They often use exotic hardware no
On Wed, September 21, 2005 23:38, Randomthots wrote:
But I'm not quite sure why a Dell would be any more proprietary than
anything you could roll-your-own.
Lucky you.
I can tell you from experience Dell's are way more quirky than others
(brand or whiteboxes). They often use exotic hardware no
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:18:15 +0100, Randomthots
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandro Colorado wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:38:11 +0100, Randomthots
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nicu Buculei wrote:
You will often see people defining the office suite as something
including *all* the
On 9/22/05, Johan Vromans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robin Laing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...] you miss one point about standards. They are documented and
readable.
Standards are there for information exchange. Therefore, good practice
requires that there are (at least) two independent
Johan Vromans wrote:
Robin Laing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...] you miss one point about standards. They are documented and
readable.
Standards are there for information exchange. Therefore, good practice
requires that there are (at least) two independent implementations of
the standard.
On 9/22/05, John W. Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And there are at least two implementations.
There *possibly will be* at least two implementations. There is current one,
and it's not default.
And of the two potential future implementations, one of them is forever
locked on a platform
On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 10:38 -0400, Chad Smith wrote:
That's what I mean, we've got, what? Two office suites using OpenDocument?
And really, neither one is using them for real yet. OOo 2.0 (that great
mythilogical beast) *will* use it, but KOffice doesn't yet, and OOo doesn't
yet.
Lack of
Alexandro Colorado wrote:
SNIP
It is and is not, having an option that sends by email could also
have a plug-in that sends by bluetooth. I think you see this on
Outlooks plug-ins for syncing your palm.
SNIP...
Oh!! That would be so very nice. :-)
SC
--
How sweet it is!!! :)
Chad Smith wrote:
SNIP..
Well, I don't totally agree with you on this. I don't think opendocuments
matters at all. I sincerely doubt it will ever take off. It is, and likely
will remain, a geek-only format on two office suites, one of which is locked
on a geek-mostly very small market
Robert Derman wrote:
Robert Derman replies: I just dug out my old Olivetti manual and it was
on the @ cent key just to the right of the :; key, where the ' key is
now. the ' apostrophe and quote marks used to be in the top row. ~
is used for some hosted web pages, so unfortunately we
Sweet Coffee wrote:
Alexandro Colorado wrote:
SNIP
It is and is not, having an option that sends by email could also
have a plug-in that sends by bluetooth. I think you see this on
Outlooks plug-ins for syncing your palm.
SNIP...
Oh!! That would be so very nice. :-)
SC
Alexandro Colorado wrote:
I don't understand how an office suite is bluetooth
enabled
- isn't that an operating system thing?).
It is and is not, having an option that sends by email could also have
a plug-in that sends by bluetooth. I think you see this on Outlooks
plug-ins for syncing
On 9/21/05, Sweet Coffee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well here is where I disagree with you Chad. I do not think the
opendocuments format is geeky. The problem I see with OOo relates to where
it is used and who it is exposed to.
By definition, anyone who understands what an file format really
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:45:33 +0100, Randomthots
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sweet Coffee wrote:
Alexandro Colorado wrote:
SNIP
It is and is not, having an option that sends by email could also
have a plug-in that sends by bluetooth. I think you see this on
Outlooks plug-ins for
Ian Lynch wrote:
Your average Dell user will probably not understand how a car might
be able to run on something other than gasoline.
Would you quit with the Dell nonsense? I have a degree in Mechanical
Engineering and am working on a Master's in IT. My Dell has been a good
little machine
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 13:15 -0500, Randomthots wrote:
Ian Lynch wrote:
Your average Dell user will probably not understand how a car might
be able to run on something other than gasoline.
Would you quit with the Dell nonsense?
:-) Chad started it. I don't use Dell. I'm assuming in
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 15:46 -0400, Chad Smith wrote:
Sorry Rod - I had no idea that you used a Dell. My point was that most geeks
don't use Dells, and most people who use Dells aren't geeks.
I'd say statistiacally that most people using Dells aren't Geeks but I
bet there is a sizeable minority
Chad Smith wrote:
On 9/21/05, Randomthots [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you quit with the Dell nonsense? I have a degree in Mechanical
Engineering and am working on a Master's in IT. My Dell has been a good
little machine for me.
Nobody with a Dell cares about file formats.
I do. And
Chad wrote:
To stay current (read *AHEAD* of Microsoft) we need a functional, working,
easy-to-use, standards-compliant, WYSIWYG HTML editor.
Upgraading the HTML output to HTML 4.01 + CSS 1.0 would be a good start.
But we could get rid of the useless ones like ` and ~ .
The tilde is
On 9/21/05, Jonathon Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chad wrote:
soon (and it's already started happening) you'll be able to make up your
own keyboard layout.
On Linux, that ability hs been around since around 1990. I don't
remember when that ability first became available on Windows.
If
T. J. Brumfield wrote:
I'll file an official request. Most open source WYSIWYG HTML editors are
rather simple ones however designed to allow someone online to edit a page.
I was hoping to see a Frontpage replacement, especially since Frontpage uses
proprietary extensions for its widgets and
Alexandro Colorado wrote:
Python for web editor?
Even if it's intereting we went away from the end user and into the
developer space. In theory Basic interface can be used to use Java. But
the problem is that if we want to put every single application we end
up with a 3GB program.
I
Chad Smith wrote:
This thread (and particularly this email) sounds very familiar. It seems we
have had this conversation many times already, and people are refining their
arguments each time.
It IS familiar. It's bothered me ever since Daniel C. made an argument
against including an Outlook
on 09/20/05 10:04 'Randomthots' wrote:
Chad Smith wrote:
My answer is - who cares? Why does it matter if it is a Blog or an
online
newspaper? Why does it matter if an office suite is defined a certain
way or
not? What we need to decide is, not what some mythological architypical
OFFICE
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:55:11 +0100, Colin J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Alexandro Colorado wrote:
Python for web editor?
Even if it's intereting we went away from the end user and into the
developer space. In theory Basic interface can be used to use Java.
But the problem is
Nicu Buculei wrote:
You will often see people defining the office suite as something
including *all* the things included in Microsoft Office, probably this
is an effect of Microsoft's clever marketing.
The point isn't whether or not MSO has a component but WHY MSO has a
component.
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:04:03 +0100, Randomthots
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chad Smith wrote:
This thread (and particularly this email) sounds very familiar. It
seems we
have had this conversation many times already, and people are refining
their
arguments each time.
It IS familiar.
Hi Rod
SNIP...
4. A full-frontal assault on the bibliography project. The current
system is good for exactly one citation/bibliography style and totally
worthless otherwise.
SNIP...
The biblio folk are trying very hard to address the issues you raised in
your Point 4. In the end, OOo
On 9/20/05, Randomthots [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly. It seems to me that these decisions should be based on more
pragmatic arguments. Particularly, What have users of office suites come
to expect? and What is do-able given the existing infrastructure and
resources?
The fact
On 9/20/05, Alexandro Colorado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So on this new office suite of today where people do most of their work on
web applications, should we all do a Web version of OOo?
A web version of OOo would be awesome. There are a few attempts at this (an
online office suite) that
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:13:44 +0100, Chad Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/20/05, Alexandro Colorado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So on this new office suite of today where people do most of their work
on
web applications, should we all do a Web version of OOo?
A web version of OOo would
On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 15:05 -0400, Chad Smith wrote:
To stay current (read *AHEAD* of Microsoft) we need a functional, working,
easy-to-use, standards-compliant, WYSIWYG HTML editor. Not Nvu. Nvu breaks a
lot of code. Not Frontpage - good Lord, please nothing like Frontpage!
Something like
On 9/20/05, Alexandro Colorado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:13:44 +0100, Chad Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A web version of OOo would be awesome. There are a few attempts at this
(an
online office suite) that are already out there (Thinkfree Office, EI
Office,
On 9/20/05, Ian Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So why not just use one of the open source Wiki environments? They
support all this stuff? If they aren't good enough as is, modify one of
them and make it an optional extra. Mozilla composer? Again improving
that would be less draining on
Chad Smith wrote:
On 9/20/05, Randomthots [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly. It seems to me that these decisions should be based on more
pragmatic arguments. Particularly, What have users of office suites come
to expect? and What is do-able given the existing infrastructure and
resources?
On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 16:19 -0400, Chad Smith wrote:
Well, I don't totally agree with you on this. I don't think opendocuments
matters at all. I sincerely doubt it will ever take off.
Bit like the boss of IBM who famously said the world might need maybe 4
computeres ;-)
It is, and likely
On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 16:26 -0400, Chad Smith wrote:
On 9/20/05, Ian Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So why not just use one of the open source Wiki environments? They
support all this stuff? If they aren't good enough as is, modify one of
them and make it an optional extra. Mozilla
On 9/20/05, Ian Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought the discussion was that OOo needed a web publisher to do web
sites. OOo already has the facilities to save files as sendable
documents, we don;t have to add anything to do that.
No Ian, you misunderstand. There are two different
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:18:52 +0100, Chad Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/20/05, Ian Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought the discussion was that OOo needed a web publisher to do web
sites. OOo already has the facilities to save files as sendable
documents, we don;t have to add
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:39:33 +0100, Ian Lynch wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 01:10 -0500, T. J. Brumfield wrote:
With 2.0 looming, has there been much thought of the future roadmap of OOO?
One thing I'd really like to see added to OOO is a fully featured HTML
editor. There are plenty of
Ian Lynch wrote:
I'd like to see the effort going into fundamentally improving the
efficiency of the code so that OOo is as compact and as fast as it can
possibly be, encouraging posrts to PDAs as they get cheaper and more
powerful hardware.
I bet you're an advocate of eliminating
45 matches
Mail list logo
