[Fwd: Word Processors]

[Steve Luzynski <sluzynsk sound net>]

Sorry, forgot to change the reply address. <grr>

> Rebecca Ore wrote:
> > Rft is good.  All other formats lie about what they do and don't import/export
> > to other formats (except for .txt).
> 
> So RTF, TXT, and HTML/XML to start with. MS Word would be nice, but we
> could probably get away with read-only at first since a GOOD RTF
> implementation will still allow nicely formatted export to the Windows
> using folks.
> 
> >>A windows version should be low on the list (or not on it at all).
> 
> Not on my list at all. I figure some enterprising soul will probably do
> it anyway just to say they did it. :)
> 
> > >Get the core functionality going and worry about UI later.
> 
> Gack! UI _IS_ core functionality.
> 
> Do it the right way. Expose *every* function in some sort of
> customizable remap gizmo. Ship it with emacs, Word, and WordPerfect
> bindings and let the users change the bindings easily with a graphical
> toy of some kind. Store their bindings per user so some WordStar loving
> pervert doesn't screw it up for everyone on that machine. :)
> 
> >         My personal preference is to have at least two ways
> > to do common repetitive tasks other than straight keyboarding and space bar
> > (for that you've got two thumbs).
> 
> It really brings up the whole issue of UI standards...<big groan>
> There's a good start on the gnome website, of course. I think the most
> important 3 things are consistency, consistency, and consistency. If all
> GNOME programs don't work alike (at least out of the box,
> pre-customization) then all this is for naught.
> 
> It sounds like we're getting close to putting together a formal spec for
> a project. I can probably host it for a while, but my ISDN line will
> likely get pounded to death quickly with the traffic added to what I
> already get. :)
> 
> Any more thoughts out there? I can start consolidating bits of this
> conversation if someone else isn't already doing so...