Please don't let me interrupt but... I agree that Office, stands for "Office" and not "Document". At least the dictionary doesn't identify them as synonyms
Daniel. You mentioned borrowing code, and integrating features across components. Would it be possible to integrate parts of Mozzilla into OOo and then alter the interface to be consistent with other OOo modules?
This would kill two birds with one stone. A: You'd have an e-mail client / web browser, and B: You'd have familiarity of OpenOffice.
Ex: You could add specific buttons for integration, and hooks to allow for passage of data between components. There's even the possibility of completely re-orienting the interface to look and feel like OOo.
We could name it OpenOffice Mozzila, or something like that. No need to write new code, and we could create an isolated component, and simply call it instead of trying to build a new module.
I don't really think this post should be for the dev list because I'm trying to offer solutions. I think we can use what already exists and work with that. The mozzilla team hopefully will give us permission if we ask nicely. The GPL is flexible after all.
Rigel
On 5/26/05, Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I still think if we simply worked with Mozilla and the GIMP to present
a unified interface, all of this debate would be meaningless. And as
the more sucessful of the three in the aspects of acceptance,
recognition, and cross-platform continuity - I suggest that Mozilla be
the leading project on it. Mozilla's port to Mac OS X, for example,
is far more stable, reliable, and native-looking than anything OOo has
put out. we might even want to include Abiword, since people often
ask for *just* the word processor.
-Chad Smth
On 5/26/05, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> Kevin Hatch wrote:
>
> >They're collaboration tools, the same you'd find in any groupware
> >suite.
> >
> Thanks for the term.
>
> >I agree there's a clear distinction between "passive
> >communication" documents and the more active communication above, but
> >with regard to what should be included with OOo, consider the role of
> >the suite. Is it Open "Office" or more Open "Documents?" --I always
> >assumed the former, which to me would include whatever applications are
> >currently useful to office productivity, be they calendars or reference
> >dictionaries.
> >
> I see your point, but the problem with that logic is that there are so
> many things an office uses. An office has payroll and accounting, they
> have web browsers and a dozen other things. But we can't include all of
> those things inside OOo. Not just due to limited resources. Even if we
> had infinite man power, those things really should be separate programs.
>
> >That said, I still wouldn't advocate the development of
> >new calendar, email, etc. applications for OOo; there are plenty of
> >quality open source applications available that already perform those
> >functions. Partner with them formally, develop standard hooks to tie
> >them together, and if including them with releases of the core OOo is an
> >issue, at the very least actively direct users to them.
> >
> >
> That's an important argument too. For example, I said earlier that
> drawing bitmap images falls within my mental picture of what an
> document-making tool should have. But I wouldn't advocate adding that to
> OOo because there's GIMP.
>
> [snip: summary -- the line is fuzzy]
>
> Yes, the line is fuzzy. :-)
>
> >Well said. But if it's an office tool that's used by most people most
> >of the time, then I'd include that before a less useful purely document
> >creation feature.
> >
> >
> Another advantage of using reasonably self-contained categories is code
> reuse. For example, a spread sheet needs some vector graphics
> functionality (to make charts). Vector graphics are an obvious
> complement for a presentations program. So... if you're going to make
> Calc and Impress, it makes sense to go the extra mile and make Draw. And
> in so doing you end up with a better word processor, spread sheet and
> presentations program than you had before.
>
> I suspect that this line of reasoning is what led to OOo's current
> design. And I like it. I find that OOo's features are very
> complementary, so the quality of the software is greater than what you'd
> expect by simply counting the number of features.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.
>
--
-Chad Smith
*G-Mail ROCKS
