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
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
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
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.
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy