openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: AOO.Next IBM Priorities
Date Sat, 03 Nov 2012 18:55:14 GMT

On Nov 2, 2012, at 1:40 AM, Andrea Pescetti 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,

If a Java library is not a barrier then Apache POI might be helpful. Talk to Nick Burch or
Yegor Kozlov at Apachecon EU.

> full or enhanced ODF 1.2 support,

Again if Java is not a barrier the Apache ODFToolkit (incubating) might be a reasonable tool
- What do you think Rob?


> 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!
> Regards,
>  Andrea.

View raw message