Chad wrote:
> That's *your* opinion, though. A whole lot of people disagree with you.
At the low end/low quality level, the trend is to integrate more
"tools" together.
At the high end/high quality level, the trend is to segregate out the
tools even more.
>The only point of an office *SUITE* is to have a plethora of tools
for you. Otherwise, just grab AbiWord or whatever
"one-tool-for-one-job" thing you want/need.
>I think intragating or interfacing or whatever you want to call it,
with Mozilla is a good first step.
Tools that play nicely with each other --- which is something that MSO
aspires to in the dim and distant future.
> we can make it look like OOo..
The issue in making tools _appear_ to be part of the same suite, is
that menus and menu commands are laid out in the same place in each of
them. And behave the same way in each of them. [ [CTRL K B Page down
CTRL K E CTRL C should perform the same operation in all components. ]
> for the HTML-editor. (And an "edit in OOo HTML" button for Firefox.)
OOo should either drop all pretense of being an HTML editor, or else
rewrite it so that it exports, but does not edit HTML. [Basically,
treat HTML as it currently treats PDF.]
Hook it up to NVU, for those who want an HTML editor --- even though
it is only mrginally better than OOos HTML editing.
> All of this could be done without rewriting the code.
So when will you write the macros that do that "customization"?
> I think this would solve a lot of the "OOo needs...." complaints.
You forgot the button for SunBird and Nvu.
xan
jonathon
--
A Fork requires:
Seven systems with:
1+ GHz Processors
2+ GB RAM
0.25 TB Hard drive space
