Subject: Re: A Proposal (why we should have setBold(true))
From: sam th (sam@bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu)
Date: Wed May 31 2000 - 17:53:19 CDT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 31 May 2000, Robert Sievers wrote:
> At 02:49 PM 5/31/00 -0500, sam th wrote:
> >As an additional concern, if we were to do this major conversion, what
> >would that do to any timeframe people might have. Does sourcegear want to
> >release abiword in the near future? Would this rewrite hinder that?
>
> Yes.
>
> SourceGear would really like to move this project toward a 1.0 release in a
> big way. If someone wants to work on rewriting the piece table, we won't
> stop you. From my point of view though, it would be significantly more
> useful to work on the list patch, the Word export work that has been
> started, or one of the 200 outstanding bugs.
Well, James says that word export is on the way in a few weeks, so that
seems under control. The list patch is waiting on the fields rewrite,
althoug Martin (who seems to be the current maintainer) may reconsider.
There are lots of bugs, though.
However, everyone on the PT thread agreed that something needed to be
done. I got started on this becuase the XHTML importer is needlessly
difficult to write currently. If we keep the system the way it is, we
will just run into more and more things that require workarounds or kludge
solutions. Maybe it won't get into 1.0, but I think this needs to be
done. (I like Jeff's suggestions, provided I understood it properly).
I'll work on it if other people agree with me.
sam th
sam@uchicago.edu
http://sam.rh.uchicago.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE5NZfht+kM0Mq9M/wRAjyOAJwPUGzCUB18Fnesg7RrQYmn/oURXgCfZ2qy
vKISdyncWNBBUKAN6MlUdLk=
=kA5m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed May 31 2000 - 17:53:52 CDT