Re: Word Processors

[Reklaw <nawalker earthlink net>]

On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 02:39:47 Rebecca Ore wrote:
> 
> 	As I don't know any programming languages, I can patch and test.
> 
> 	For me the ideal would be a lean and mean core, and loadable modules 
> for the fancier stuff.  No chatty paperclips.   Maybe a couple of very
> basic templates: letter, double column newsletter, memo, report, book
> manuscript.  And it prints various sizes in landscape and portrait.
> 
> 	So far, I haven't seen one  open source program that does all that I'd
> want even a lean and mean wp to do.  Maxwell makes a stab at
> printing envelopes but isn't quite there yet; PW doesn't import formatting
> quite as nicely in rtf, doesn't even attempt to do envelopes, doesn't have
> zoom, and has idiotic keybindings (non-standard for either emacs or Word/WP
> family).  Maxwell is better with graphics as far as I can see .
> 
> 	Reklaw has made objections to Maxwell not working on the command -line
> to open with a file and to the lack of plug-ins and macros.
> 
> -- 
> Rebecca Ore
> 

I am going to have to make time to read your books :).

I think we can (or rather should) agree on the following...
The "Solution" should be able to read and write RTF like it was
born to do it. Word 6/95/97/2000 should be a high on list but I'm
think we may chase our tails in closed formats on that one.

A windows version should be low on the list (or not on it at all). 
WordPerfect couldn't compete and a brand-new open source up-start would
not have a chance. MS Office is just about standard whereever you find 
people wearing slacks.And there not going to change to sake of open source. We need to share data files (documents) with Windows/Word
operating on that platform would prob just start a large FUD campain
from MS.

Plugins and Macros make sense from a development standpoint. Easier
for programmers to extend the WP if they don't have to learn the internals of the app. Read up on the logic of plugins on the Saig site.

<personal bais>
PW has a quirky interface. By Gnomeifiation, I would hope that the 
programmers would strive to make it standardized and customizeable.
PW has support for plugins (that can save inside the file) and a few
macro langs. PW has an open file format.Don't get me wrong, it needs
more features (I really want labels -- I hacked a postscript file the
last time I needed to print some).Header and footer were also missing
last I looked.

GWP could be extended in much the same way. It supports plugins. Macros
could be added.
</personal bais>

Whatever is choosen it needs a spell checker (in balsa too) <grin>.


I think the best course of action for anyone wanting to work
on an open source WP is to add RTF import/export to your fav.

Get the core functionality going and worry about UI later.
==========
Reklaw - I code therefore I need gin and sprite.
GNOME software projects - Pharmacy * gnome-standalone 
http://home.earthlink.net/~nawalker/