I'm not so positive about this. The technology behind the LibreOffice Online version is a bit tricky and it's not clear how it will work effectively. We should wait and see.
Some thing for Wave, it's not clear how it will be developped in the future and it seems that the Google experience had shown that the way they mixed Inbox + Editing Documents + Chat was not the correct solution (beyond the real time technology in it). In any case integrating editors for advanced formats is definitively interesting and is something we should look at. We have the Resilience Research Project (starting in 2012) on which it is planned to work on Rich Web Editors. More on it will come before the end of the year. It will include work on Spreadsheet editors. If anybody knows of good Web based editors for popular formats that we should look at, tell us. As for real-time this is very interesting also. We have the Wiki 3.0 project (https://wiki30.xwikisas.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome in French) where XWiki SAS is doing some work with the INRIA LORIA on integrating real time in the Wysiwyg editor (with technologies similar to Wave). This is work in progress. I'd love to hear from our devs and users what they think we should have in this area ? Ludovic 2011/10/18 Guillaume Lerouge <guilla...@xwiki.com> > Hi, > > I think that this is an interesting and valid point. In the same way that > users can get a preview of OOo-supported attached files right now, we could > integrate use OOo's upcoming HTML5 version in XWiki (when it's ready). From > this article: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/17/libreoffice_porting_ios_android_cloud/ > : > > *The LibreOffice Online cloud software is built around HTML5 Canvas and the > GTK+ framework with JavaScript shims, and was developed by SUSE's Michael > Meeks and RedHat's Alex Laarson. It allows complex text layout, large > spreadsheets, WYSIWYG editing, VBA macros, and pivot tables, with the > server > side taking almost the entire processor load.* > > > So that would seem to answer your initial issue :-) You could upload a .odt > file, edit it online from the wiki, save it and it would be viewable from > the wiki or re-downloadable at will. > > Guillaume > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Eugen Colesnicov <ecolesni...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > > > coldserenity wrote: > > > > > > ... the UX of the Wave (in this particular case and because Wave is > a > > > specialized tool) is superior. > > > > > > > I am not agree with you. Good idea - but realisation - terrible! > > 1. Google used some special interface functions - they thinking, that > these > > possibilities will be web-standarts - but they got a mistake. For this > > reason, Wave working quickly and without problems only on Google Chrome > > (only this browser supports all these non-standart functions). > > 2. Try Wave with Firefox at simple computer (netbook for example) - > cannot > > work on big waves (hundred messages)!!! I press one button and waiting > 3-5 > > secunds per each symbol. It is not problem of notebook - Windows 7, MS > > Office working great and quickly! > > 3. Too many errors on scripts - every 5 minutes I got error - script > > bla-bla-bla stopped! > > > > I have experience with Google Wave with big waves of hundreds waves - for > > this reason I known what I said. > > > > However it's not the Wave I was trying to promote by this thread, it > was > > just an example of advanced user interaction User-to-User and > User-to-Wiki: > > advanced documents editing for most popular types of documents (text, > > spreadsheet, and presentation). I understand the complexity of this task > > (it > > took 20 years for Microsoft to build their MS Office), but the question > is: > > I often consider whether to upload a MS Office file as an attachment or > > maintain the file's content as an XWiki page - and sooner or later > someone > > will come up with such solution ( Open-source wiki + Open-Source Google > > Docs > > :) ). So it's not about writing some missing extension - it's about > taking > > XWiki to the next level in terms of content editing. > > > > Roman > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: users-bounces@ [mailto:users-bounces@] On Behalf Of Eugen > Colesnicov > > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 20:46 PM > > To: users@ > > Subject: Re: [xwiki-users] Extending XWiki collaboration toolset > > > > Hi! I am not a developer of XWiki, but I am using XWiki 2 years and your > > questions are closed to me. > > > > 1. Wave is a new project (as a apache open-source project). It is started > > as > > a Google Wave, after Google "forgot it" and Wave migrated to the apache > > incubator. As I know for now - Wave as a independent open-source project > > didn't realise yet in production - for this reason, developers of other > > platforms right now cannot be sure exactly of future API, future > > functionality and other things of Wave ... Discuss about integration with > > it > > can be started after Wave will be released in a production. > > > > 2. XWiki is not only a final user-product "from the box" - is a "base" of > > your possible product (application). And regarding to "collaboration" > XWiki > > can give to users more and more. For example, as a small comparison with > > Google Wave: > > - In XWiki you can add "pages" - same in Wave you can add "waves" > > - In XWiki you can write any comments to this page and comments to the > > comments (tree organized). > > - In XWiki you can sent messages inside XWiki > > - In XWiki you can attach any files to this page and you can organize > view > > content of this files using officeviewer macro, also existing pictire > > viewing and charts drawing ... > > - In XWiki you can add tasks to this page (exist special macro) > > - In XWiki you can connect this page to other pages (wiki, documentation, > > etc) > > - In XWiki you can construct personal dashboards and gadgets > > - Also existing light calculations. If you need more calculations - you > can > > write own macro ... > > What else exists in Google Wave and don't exists in XWiki? I don't know > ... > > (maybe another idea of interface). XWiki give you more - because you can > > add > > additional macros, add additional functionality (for example blogs, > forums, > > etc). For this reason, I think, that XWiki is enought for colaboration. > > Difference from Google Wave - that you need to "construct" in XWiki you > own > > "application". You can see examples of such applications: > > http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Chronopolys > > > > -- > > Best regards > > Eugen Colesnicov > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > > > > http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolset-tp6900649p6901630.html > > Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > > users mailing list > > users@ > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > _______________________________________________ > > users mailing list > > users@ > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > > http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Extending-XWiki-collaboration-toolset-tp6900649p6902014.html > > Sent from the XWiki- Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > > users mailing list > > users@xwiki.org > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@xwiki.org > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > -- Ludovic Dubost Founder and CEO Blog: http://blog.ludovic.org/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost GTalk: ldubost _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
