Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of acolorado@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.160.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: acolorado@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOap24+XU+uAHB3W++LbP9gKG-fm=0YJ698qcPK=sVLNbADzWA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <OF4001E706.639542BF-ON85257AA9.00590116-85257AA9.005C165D@lotus.com>
	<5093870D.3010605@apache.org>
	<CAOap24+XU+uAHB3W++LbP9gKG-fm=0YJ698qcPK=sVLNbADzWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:34:45 -0600
Message-ID: 
 <CAMK9kTj8PwLCVk9QMPBngx9n62qEGePRUjKk_R_+z9POF5aZeg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AOO.Next IBM Priorities
From: Alexandro Colorado <jza@oooes.org>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 11/2/12, Ian Lynch <ianrlynch@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 November 2012 08:40, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 01/11/2012 robert_weir wrote:
>>
>>> We (IBM) have consulted with customers, internal users, other IBM
>>> product
>>> teams, on what our (IBM's) development priorities should be for the next
>>> AOO release.  Obviously, we're not the only ones with priorities or
>>> interests or opinions.  We don't make AOO decisions by ourselves.  But
>>> we
>>> want to be transparent about what our own priorities are
>>>
>>
>> Thank you for sharing. They are all good and needed contributions and
>> they
>> cover many of the main results from the Google Moderator user survey.
>>
>> There are still missing things that I've seen requested and that I would
>> personally like to see in the product (a non-exhaustive list would
>> include:
>> better OOXML support, full or enhanced ODF 1.2 support,
>
>
> I think the best filters possible are the highest priority. It is difficult
> to use AOO with government documents because mostly they have complex table
> structures for gathering data in docx format. This more than anything will
> prevent take up.

This problem is more on the design and paper paradigm. Having a
digitalization of a paper-form forms, we use tables to design as
opposed as to hold tabular data.

A document design should be done with a DTP program something that
Writer is not the optimal software for it. Frame-based software is the
ideal for design documents.

One simple example is the lack of 'rotate' an image in Writer, while
Draw has it.

Here we have two scenarios:
1) Import such features into writer.
2) Improve the integration of draw and writer. Draw layers could
easily be taken as a "template" for writer to fill in around Draw
designs.

>
> better defaults, better integration with the Extensions and Templates sites
>> or in general better visibility for the additional resources, a refreshed
>> visual identity not only in the interface...), and indeed it will be good
>> to start collecting priorities on the wiki and assess feasibility of the
>> underlying development.
>>
>> And then of course there's the community side: we are now able to engage
>> localization volunteers but there is still work to do to be able to
>> engage
>> unaffiliated developers, so we might take that into consideration when
>> discussing the new features.
>>
>>  releasing is PMC decision, not an IBM one.  But we think that this work
>>> could be completed and tested for a release in the March/April 2013
>>> time-frame.  And the scope of the release might be significant enough to
>>> warrant a "4.0" designation.
>>>
>>
>> Seems like this would be a good plan. Let's make it real!
>>
>
> On that timescale we really need to get going if we are to have a
> competition for branding for 4.0.
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Andrea.
>>
>
> --
> Ian
>
> Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
>
> www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
>
> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
> Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
> Wales.
>


-- 
Alexandro Colorado
PPMC Apache OpenOffice
http://es.openoffice.org