[libreoffice-website] Re: ConfCall wiki page broken?

Le 2010-11-05 17:32, Nino Novak a écrit :
> On Friday 05 November 2010 22:19, Marc Paré wrote:
> > Le 2010-11-05 16:04, Nino Novak a écrit :
> > > On Friday 05 November 2010 20:27, Marc Paré wrote:
> > > > I would not go to Wiki-markup.
> > >
> > > Please read Manuals reply.
> > >
> > > It's not about supposed potential users but actual contributors.
> > > They predominantly seem to switch off the editor.
> > >
> > > So the editor should be disabled until a fixed version is
> > > found/installed.
> > >
> > > Nino
> > > EOD for me
> >
> > Thanks Nino. Don't take the rest of the following as an angry retort
> > but more of a discussion more on the philosophy behind what I
> > consider the use of WYSIWYG editors.
>
> I'll give it a try ;)
>
>
> > I don't have a problem with turning off the editor if it is not
> > working. But would like to have the option of using it if this is
> > possible at all ... pretty please. BTW, I am probably the one who
> > turned the editor on in Manuel stats. LOL
> >
> > Also BTW, thanks for Manuel for all of his hard work. It is
> > appreciated.
> >
> > I do all of my contributions with WYSIWYG editors wherever I
> > participate. I find that I can format more efficiently and have more
> > time and leave the formatting coding up to the editor. This is not to
> > say that I could not do it or stop contributing to the project, but
> > it would certainly slow down the process.
>
> while I see this, please see also that I'm scared of the problems a
> broken editor produces, i.e. additional work and possible data loss.
> Therefore, it's a question of balancing arguments.
>
>
> > I find it a little strange that we are debating about the virtues of
> > using  WYSIWYG editors while at the same time advocating a suite
> > built on the principles of WYSIWYG.
>
> It's not about the principles of WYSIWYG but about weighting pros and
> cons of a /broken/ editor. No one would complain if the editor wouldn't
> destroy text.
>
>
> > How ironic, when you think that
> > the majority of people would definitely use the LibO suite and not
> > return to the CP/M days of coding all aspects of formatting to write
> > an article .. Wordstar these days would clearly not sell.
>
> see above. Nobody talks about principles, it's about working efficiency.
>
>
> > If we are looking to increasing the amount of membership
> > participation on the project, then, presumably they are here because
> > they believe in the LibO suite and would like to contribute. By
> > providing these new members a means by which to participate that
> > includes subscribing to a text editor that requires an output better
> > suited to a WYSIWYG editor is self-defeating.
>
> Again, read Manuel's mail.
>
> We should not argue about potential but actual contributors.
>
> > Having more members participate will make for a better and more
> > popular vibrant project.
>
> For me, nothing is more de-motivating than if you're using tools that
> erase your contributions silently.
>
> Remember: I'm not talking about principles but concrete problems.
>
> Nino

Ok, then we agree on one point that its Ok to remove the FCKEditor. On 
the rest, well, if removed I'll try to muddle through as best I can. I 
will try the LibO extension to see.

Marc


--
E-mail to website+help@libreoffice.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/website/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted