From tlewis@mindspring.net
Received: (qmail 20107 invoked from network); 16 Oct 1998 22:55:44 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Oct 1998 22:55:44 -0000
Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA03496
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:48:28 -0400
Received: from reflections.eng.mindspring.net (reflections.eng.mindspring.net [207.69.192.100])
	by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA17163
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:48:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:48:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Todd Graham Lewis <tlewis@mindspring.net>
X-Sender: tlewis@reflections.eng.mindspring.net
To: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981016182928.21933M-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>
Return-Receipt-To: tlewis@mindspring.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

Ok, I was out of the office for three weeks, thinking the entire time
about how to approach the building of a word processor.

After spending an ungodly amount of money on various MS Office books and
really looking at how they look, I realized something: all Office apps share
the same infrastructure.  There's the document part, and then there's the
stuff wrapped around it.  

The document part is very similar across all Office apps.  You can tell
this by comparing Word and PowerPoint in their appearance; they are very
similar in this regard.  The document widget is told the display style,
whether to use a ruler, etc., and is reponsible for doing printing,
print preview, and all other document display functions.  (At least,
that's what it looks like.)  Editing is done here.

Then there are the outside parts.  Clicking the "B" button in word probably
calls CurrentDocument->SetStyleBold(*CurrentSelection), or something.
The search function probably uses bunches of GetNextWord() calls to pull
text out of the doc.  Again, this is just what I am guessing from looking
at lots of functional descriptions and screenshots.

How does this work under the hood?  Well, one way it could work for us is
to use the canvaas to build a similar piece of infrastructure.  For each
Gnoffice app, i.e., for each different type of document that you want an
editor for (a presentation document, a structured document, a traditional
word processor document), you take the XML definition of your doc type and
make your own doc widget which inherits a lot of functionality from the
basic XML handler widget.  You then export lots of functions, like:

selection manipulators (MoveCursorToOffset(int NumWordsFromStart), etc.)
style selectors
doc querying functions (GetNextWord, InsertFootnote(* DocLocation), etc.)
editing functions (InsertText, Delete Text, InsertSection)

And then I got back and read the DOM docs from the W3C, and I realized
that other people were already way ahead of me on how to do this stuff.
The DOM presents a generic way to do this for any XML stylesheet, and is,
therefore, a Godsend for people writing GNOME Office applications.

My TODO list for getting a great Word clone written at this point would be
as follows:

- take canvaas and expand it to be a document widget.  (Encapsulate it in a
new document widget.)  Add these features:
	+ page view and document view
	+ rulers
	+ print preview

- write up an XML stylesheet for RTF and use this as your base.  Where are
the RTF docs?  Does it support (foot/end/margin)notes?

- take a look at the DOM docs and see how we want to export a document
object to the world with baboon.  Also take a look at the Word COM APIs,
which, according to the OLE article in this Summer's Perl Journal,
are included with Word itself.  Figure out what our exposed API for a
Word-like document object would be.

- implement.

Once this component is written, adding all of the GUI trappings is trivial.
If ORBit supported perl, you could easily write the actual WP in perl.  You
are just wrapping the document API in some buttons and menus.

Does this sound reasonable?  Is this the right way to write a word processor?

--
Todd Graham Lewis            3249'N,8336'W          (800) 719-4664, x2804
******Linux******         MindSpring Enterprises      tlewis@mindspring.net

From tlewis@mindspring.net
Received: (qmail 22248 invoked from network); 16 Oct 1998 22:59:11 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Oct 1998 22:59:11 -0000
Received: from dewdrop2.mindspring.com (dewdrop2.mindspring.com [207.69.200.82])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA03657
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:51:55 -0400
Received: from reflections.eng.mindspring.net (reflections.eng.mindspring.net [207.69.192.100])
	by dewdrop2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA11780
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:51:55 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:51:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Todd Graham Lewis <tlewis@mindspring.net>
X-Sender: tlewis@reflections.eng.mindspring.net
To: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981016182928.21933M-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981016184856.21933N-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>
Return-Receipt-To: tlewis@mindspring.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Todd Graham Lewis wrote:

> - take a look at the DOM docs and see how we want to export a document
> object to the world with baboon.

Doh!  I forgot to mention the one thing that triggered this message:

Mozilla has a DOM implementation!  You can find it at /lib/libdom under
their CVS root.  Take a look at:

	http://www.mozilla.org/layout/perignon.html

for more info.  If there are licensing concerns which prohibit our using
their code, then we can at least learn from it.  I don't know of a W3C
DOM implementation, but if there is one then I'd love to see it, too.

Finally, someone might want to take the DOM IDL files (it's specified in
CORBA!) and start making sure that they are within ORBit's capabilities
and maybe begin some implementation work along with libXML.

If I am leading people astray with this advice, then someone, please,
correct me!

--
Todd Graham Lewis            3249'N,8336'W          (800) 719-4664, x2804
******Linux******         MindSpring Enterprises      tlewis@mindspring.net

From sam@hydro.gen.nz
Received: (qmail 6698 invoked from network); 16 Oct 1998 23:17:25 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Oct 1998 23:17:25 -0000
Received: from hydro.gen.nz (sam@hydro.gen.nz [203.96.56.117])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA04583
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 19:10:06 -0400
Received: from localhost (sam@localhost)
	by hydro.gen.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA17483;
	Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:09:57 +1300
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:09:57 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Sam Vilain <sam@hydro.gen.nz>
To: Todd Graham Lewis <tlewis@mindspring.net>
cc: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981016182928.21933M-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981017120010.12310C-100000@hydro.gen.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Todd Graham Lewis wrote:

> Ok, I was out of the office for three weeks, thinking the entire time
> about how to approach the building of a word processor.
> 
> After spending an ungodly amount of money on various MS Office books and
> really looking at how they look, I realized something: all Office apps share
> the same infrastructure.  There's the document part, and then there's the
> stuff wrapped around it.  

  [...]

> Does this sound reasonable?  Is this the right way to write a word processor?

Forgive me for sounding naive, but shouldn't people be working on
modifying the UI bindings and adding DOM support to an established editor
such as emacs?

---
Sam Vilain, sam@whoever.com
Vidi, vici, veni (I saw, I conquered, I came)

From Daniel.Veillard@w3.org
Received: (qmail 10063 invoked from network); 16 Oct 1998 23:18:54 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Oct 1998 23:18:54 -0000
Received: from rufus.w3.org (veillard@rufus.w3.org [18.29.0.66])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA04706
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 19:11:37 -0400
Received: (from veillard@localhost)
	by rufus.w3.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA16604;
	Fri, 16 Oct 1998 19:11:33 -0400
Message-ID: <19981016191132.B11316@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 19:11:32 -0400
From: Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@w3.org>
To: Todd Graham Lewis <tlewis@mindspring.net>, gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
Reply-To: Daniel.Veillard@w3.org
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981016182928.21933M-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net> <Pine.LNX.3.96.981016184856.21933N-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981016184856.21933N-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>; from Todd Graham Lewis on Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 06:51:56PM -0400
Resent_From: Daniel.Veillard@w3.org
Organization: World Wide Web Consortium (W3C http://www.w3.org/)

> for more info.  If there are licensing concerns which prohibit our using
> their code, then we can at least learn from it.  I don't know of a W3C
> DOM implementation, but if there is one then I'd love to see it, too.
> 
> Finally, someone might want to take the DOM IDL files (it's specified in
> CORBA!) and start making sure that they are within ORBit's capabilities
> and maybe begin some implementation work along with libXML.

  Work in progress in the CVS database under gnome-dom, not usable yet,
I have the feeling that I have spent more time this week writing E-mail
about XML DOM and how to build/improve GWP XML and style support than
for doing code... 
  Well I know what I will spend my week-end on, *grin* ...

 Could the people I get involved in discussing the XML/CSS/XSL aspects for
GWP forward reinject these in the gnome-list@gnome.org idea processor.
I really need to leave the office now and I understand that Todd need to
be fed,

  bon apetit :-)

 Daniel

-- 
Daniel.Veillard@w3.org | W3C  MIT/LCS  NE43-344  | Today's Bookmarks :
Tel: +1 617 253 5884  | 545 Technology Square   | Linux, WWW, rpm2html,
Fax: +1 617 258 5999  | Cambridge, MA 02139 USA | badminton, Kaffe,
http://www.w3.org/People/W3Cpeople.html#Veillard | HTTP-NG and Amaya.

From rosalia@cygnus.com
Received: (qmail 12544 invoked from network); 16 Oct 1998 23:19:58 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Oct 1998 23:19:58 -0000
Received: from papageno.roadrunner.com (rosalia@papageno.roadrunner.com [198.59.109.21])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA04800
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 19:12:40 -0400
Received: (from rosalia@localhost)
	by papageno.roadrunner.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA11633;
	Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:12:25 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:12:20 -0600 (MDT)
From: Mark Galassi <rosalia@cygnus.com>
To: Sam Vilain <sam@hydro.gen.nz>
Cc: Todd Graham Lewis <tlewis@mindspring.net>, gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981017120010.12310C-100000@hydro.gen.nz>
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981016182928.21933M-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>
	<Pine.LNX.3.96.981017120010.12310C-100000@hydro.gen.nz>
X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs  Lucid
Message-ID: <13863.53912.657200.32758@papageno.roadrunner.com>


    >> Does this sound reasonable?  Is this the right way to write a
    >> word processor?

    Sam> Forgive me for sounding naive, but shouldn't people be
    Sam> working on modifying the UI bindings and adding DOM support
    Sam> to an established editor such as emacs?

The talk here is about a word processor, not an editor.

From sam@hydro.gen.nz
Received: (qmail 19106 invoked from network); 16 Oct 1998 23:28:52 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Oct 1998 23:28:52 -0000
Received: from hydro.gen.nz (sam@hydro.gen.nz [203.96.56.117])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA05252
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 19:21:34 -0400
Received: from localhost (sam@localhost)
	by hydro.gen.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA17519;
	Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:19:57 +1300
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:19:57 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Sam Vilain <sam@hydro.gen.nz>
To: Mark Galassi <rosalia@cygnus.com>
cc: Todd Graham Lewis <tlewis@mindspring.net>, gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
In-Reply-To: <13863.53912.657200.32758@papageno.roadrunner.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981017121354.12310D-100000@hydro.gen.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Mark Galassi wrote:
>     >> Does this sound reasonable?  Is this the right way to write a
>     >> word processor?
> 
>     Sam> Forgive me for sounding naive, but shouldn't people be
>     Sam> working on modifying the UI bindings and adding DOM support
>     Sam> to an established editor such as emacs?
> 
> The talk here is about a word processor, not an editor.

What exactly is the difference?  

I think a word processor is merely an editor with a few slight adjustments
to it's behaviour to make it more easy to handle language.  Emacs gives us
this already with it's buffers and modes - why re-invent the wheel to
provide a word processor that will be years behind in basic editing
features?

---
Sam Vilain, sam@whoever.com

From miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx
Received: (qmail 19313 invoked from network); 17 Oct 1998 01:15:12 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Oct 1998 01:15:12 -0000
Received: from metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx (miguel@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx [132.248.29.92])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA10342
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 21:07:47 -0400
Received: (from miguel@localhost)
	by metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA28685;
	Fri, 16 Oct 1998 20:07:47 -0500
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 20:07:47 -0500
Message-Id: <199810170107.UAA28685@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>
From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
To: tlewis@mindspring.net
CC: gnome-list@gnome.org
In-reply-to: 
	<Pine.LNX.3.96.981016182928.21933M-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>
	(message from Todd Graham Lewis on Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:48:28 -0400
	(EDT))
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
X-Windows: Japan's secret weapon.
References:  <Pine.LNX.3.96.981016182928.21933M-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>


> - take canvaas and expand it to be a document widget.  (Encapsulate it in a
> new document widget.)  Add these features:
> 	  + page view and document view
> 	  + rulers
> 	  + print preview

Have you looked at how gwp is doing these days before you start
designing this?

Miguel.

From miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx
Received: (qmail 20890 invoked from network); 17 Oct 1998 01:16:56 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Oct 1998 01:16:56 -0000
Received: from metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx (miguel@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx [132.248.29.92])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA10522
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 21:09:36 -0400
Received: (from miguel@localhost)
	by metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA28704;
	Fri, 16 Oct 1998 20:09:42 -0500
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 20:09:42 -0500
Message-Id: <199810170109.UAA28704@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>
From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
To: tlewis@mindspring.net
CC: gnome-list@gnome.org
In-reply-to: 
	<Pine.LNX.3.96.981016184856.21933N-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>
	(message from Todd Graham Lewis on Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:51:56 -0400
	(EDT))
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
X-Windows: The defacto substandard.
References:  <Pine.LNX.3.96.981016184856.21933N-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>


> > - take a look at the DOM docs and see how we want to export a document
> > object to the world with baboon.
> 
> Doh!  I forgot to mention the one thing that triggered this message:
> 
> Mozilla has a DOM implementation!  You can find it at /lib/libdom under
> their CVS root.  Take a look at:

So do we, gnome-dom module.  Daniel Veillard from w3c is working on
this.

I would suggest before you start a huge thread -again- on what people
want on a word processor (everybody has their opinion on how to do
this and we will just get flooed with opinions again) that you look at
the existing projects (gwp specially) and that you read Alan's article
on Slashdot about this sort of projects.

Miguel.

From rebecca.ore@op.net
Received: (qmail 14410 invoked from network); 17 Oct 1998 01:56:22 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Oct 1998 01:56:22 -0000
Received: from ogoense.net (ogoense.net [209.152.195.21])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA13081
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 21:49:02 -0400
Received: (from rebecca@localhost)
	by ogoense.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA02085;
	Fri, 16 Oct 1998 22:01:04 -0400
From: Rebecca Ore <rebecca.ore@op.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13863.64096.163624.979333@ogoense.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 22:01:04 -0400 (EDT)
To: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
Cc: tlewis@mindspring.net, gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
In-Reply-To: <199810170107.UAA28685@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981016182928.21933M-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>
	<199810170107.UAA28685@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>
X-Mailer: VM 6.53 under 21.0 "Poitou" XEmacs Lucid

Miguel de Icaza writes:
 > 
 > > - take canvaas and expand it to be a document widget.  (Encapsulate it in a
 > > new document widget.)  Add these features:
 > > 	  + page view and document view
 > > 	  + rulers
 > > 	  + print preview
 > 
 > Have you looked at how gwp is doing these days before you start
 > designing this?

   If gwp is going to do all the things we need, then I would rather
put our efforts there.  I have just finished a manuscript and now have 
some time after I get adjusted to a new overnight schedule (one
additional overnight and an evening shift).
  
   I'll put up a summary of the earlier discussion if all hands are
agreeable, then I'll test gwp and compare it to Maxwell and Pathetic
Writer, which are the only wp Linux open source programs I've come
across so far.

   Since my publisher just assured me they could find filters for any
format...
 
   The critical issue from the users' points of view is document
structuring for searchability.  All our office suites should be able
to import each other's formats.

-- 
Rebecca Ore

From sam@hydro.gen.nz
Received: (qmail 17237 invoked from network); 17 Oct 1998 04:57:42 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Oct 1998 04:57:42 -0000
Received: from hydro.gen.nz (sam@hydro.gen.nz [203.96.56.117])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA23190
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 00:50:19 -0400
Received: from localhost (sam@localhost)
	by hydro.gen.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA17908;
	Sat, 17 Oct 1998 17:50:15 +1300
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 17:50:15 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Sam Vilain <sam@hydro.gen.nz>
To: Reklaw <adam@localhost.localdomain>
cc: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
In-Reply-To: <199810170258.TAA03477@avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981017173707.17615B-100000@hydro.gen.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Reklaw wrote:

> > I think a word processor is merely an editor with a few slight adjustments
> > to it's behaviour to make it more easy to handle language.  Emacs gives us
> > this already with it's buffers and modes - why re-invent the wheel to
> > provide a word processor that will be years behind in basic editing
> > features?
> There is more to a word processor than editing text. Emacs is 'years
> behind' in displaying and editing WYSIWYG documents (e.g. multi-font
> _formatted_ text with images). Emacs is trying to catch-up from what I
> understand. AFAIK emacs still has trouble display non-fixed-width fonts
> because it is too rooted in character display land.

You still haven't really explained to me the fundamental difference
between displaying a buffer that contains monospace text, and a buffer
that contains arbitrary media.

I haven't looked at the emacs source, so I can't really comment on how
re-usable it is - but surely all it needs is extensions to support
graphical buffers?  Then you also don't tie yourself to dependencies on
a GUI for a word processor.

---
Sam Vilain, sam@whoever.com

From rhpennin@midway.uchicago.edu
Received: (qmail 18006 invoked from network); 17 Oct 1998 06:12:24 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Oct 1998 06:12:24 -0000
Received: from haven.uchicago.edu (root@haven.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.3])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA26478
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 02:05:02 -0400
Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (root@midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12])
	by haven.uchicago.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA05458;
	Sat, 17 Oct 1998 01:01:35 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (4152@harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id AAA29891; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 00:58:53 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from localhost (rhpennin@localhost) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.8.5/8.8.3) with SMTP id AAA14950; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 00:58:52 -0500 (CDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: harper.uchicago.edu: rhpennin owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 00:58:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: Havoc Pennington <rhpennin@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: rhpennin@midway.uchicago.edu
To: Sam Vilain <sam@hydro.gen.nz>
cc: Reklaw <adam@localhost.localdomain>, gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981017173707.17615B-100000@hydro.gen.nz>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.981017005413.842R-100000@harper.uchicago.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Sat, 17 Oct 1998, Sam Vilain wrote:
> 
> You still haven't really explained to me the fundamental difference
> between displaying a buffer that contains monospace text, and a buffer
> that contains arbitrary media.
> 

Emacs is already being extended to allow fonts and images. XEmacs already
has those things. However, it is totally irrelevant, because Gnome wants
to write a WYSIWYG word processor in the
Word/WordPerfect/StarOffice/Applix/etc. tradition.  Emacs is not that and
never will be. So it is pointless to discuss. A text editor is not aimed
at the same audience, and is not optimized for the same kinds of work.

Havoc

From sam@hydro.gen.nz
Received: (qmail 25561 invoked from network); 17 Oct 1998 08:58:16 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Oct 1998 08:58:16 -0000
Received: from hydro.gen.nz (sam@hydro.gen.nz [203.96.56.117])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA32488
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 04:50:49 -0400
Received: from localhost (sam@localhost)
	by hydro.gen.nz (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA00932;
	Sat, 17 Oct 1998 21:50:30 +1300
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 21:50:30 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Sam Vilain <sam@hydro.gen.nz>
To: Havoc Pennington <rhpennin@midway.uchicago.edu>
cc: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.981017005413.842R-100000@harper.uchicago.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981017212812.885A-100000@hydro.gen.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sat, 17 Oct 1998, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > You still haven't really explained to me the fundamental difference
> > between displaying a buffer that contains monospace text, and a buffer
> > that contains arbitrary media.
> Emacs is already being extended to allow fonts and images. XEmacs already
> has those things. However, it is totally irrelevant, because Gnome wants
> to write a WYSIWYG word processor in the
> Word/WordPerfect/StarOffice/Applix/etc. tradition.  Emacs is not that and
> never will be. So it is pointless to discuss. A text editor is not aimed
> at the same audience, and is not optimized for the same kinds of work.

When I saw a seminar being given by Richard Stallman last month, he said a
statement similar to this (heavily paraphrased): 

      "It would be a shame if people had to choose between either a
   powerful editor, or a WYSIWYG word processor, when GNU emacs could be
   extended to be both."

I shouldn't continue this discussion on, as I haven't even actually got
gnome fully cranked up yet and am hence really out of my depth.  I may put
in a few more thoughts later after I've got my head around the whole
project. 

---
Sam Vilain, sam@whoever.com

From syncomm@mail1.choice.net
Received: (qmail 7680 invoked from network); 17 Oct 1998 11:47:28 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Oct 1998 11:47:28 -0000
Received: from mail1.choice.net (mail1.choice.net [209.173.128.106])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA07772
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 07:40:02 -0400
Received: from choice.net (syncomm@icebreaker.syncomm.org [209.173.132.4])
	by mail1.choice.net (ChoiceDotNet 513-723-8330) with ESMTP id HAA29203;
	Sat, 17 Oct 1998 07:39:48 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: syncomm@mail1.choice.net
Message-ID: <362882E3.2AF8F35C@choice.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 07:43:31 -0400
From: "Greg S. Hayes" <sdc@choice.net>
Organization: Syncomm Communications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.35 i586)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Vilain <sam@hydro.gen.nz>
CC: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981017212812.885A-100000@hydro.gen.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> 
> When I saw a seminar being given by Richard Stallman last month, he said a
> statement similar to this (heavily paraphrased):
> 
>       "It would be a shame if people had to choose between either a
>    powerful editor, or a WYSIWYG word processor, when GNU emacs could be
>    extended to be both."
> 

In my opinion, Richad Stallman has been pretty off the mark lately (even
anti-linux). I wouldn't accept the word of any one indivdual as the
"best idea" just because he is the GNU founder. Making emacs into a
WYSIWYG wp would create the biggest most bloated peice of crap since
Windows NT. I don't know about you, but I (and I hope GNOME) live by the
UNIX k.i.s.s. rule... Keep It Small and Simple. Apps taylored to do a
specific job in general do ALOT better than the app that tries to be
everything.

Greg Hayes

From miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx
Received: (qmail 9131 invoked from network); 17 Oct 1998 18:09:11 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Oct 1998 18:09:11 -0000
Received: from metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx (miguel@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx [132.248.29.92])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA29158
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 14:01:39 -0400
Received: (from miguel@localhost)
	by metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA29445;
	Sat, 17 Oct 1998 13:02:54 -0500
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 13:02:54 -0500
Message-Id: <199810171802.NAA29445@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>
From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
To: rebecca.ore@op.net
CC: tlewis@mindspring.net, gnome-list@gnome.org
In-reply-to: <13863.64096.163624.979333@ogoense.net> (message from Rebecca Ore
	on Fri, 16 Oct 1998 22:01:04 -0400 (EDT))
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
X-Home: is where the cat is
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981016182928.21933M-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>
	<199810170107.UAA28685@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx> <13863.64096.163624.979333@ogoense.net>


>    If gwp is going to do all the things we need, then I would rather
> put our efforts there. 

The issue with a project like a word processor is that it is not only
a complex program, but also a very big project: there are many things
to be done and so far all the work has been done by Seth Alves.

I am sure Seth wants to make his word processor the best free word
processor available, so you guys just need to help on the coding to
get the features you need actually implemented.

Miguel.

From miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx
Received: (qmail 22237 invoked from network); 17 Oct 1998 18:24:38 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Oct 1998 18:24:38 -0000
Received: from metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx (miguel@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx [132.248.29.92])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA30172
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 14:17:06 -0400
Received: (from miguel@localhost)
	by metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA29457;
	Sat, 17 Oct 1998 13:18:13 -0500
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 13:18:13 -0500
Message-Id: <199810171818.NAA29457@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>
From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
To: sdc@choice.net
CC: sam@hydro.gen.nz, gnome-list@gnome.org
In-reply-to: <362882E3.2AF8F35C@choice.net> (sdc@choice.net)
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
X-Windows: Garbage at your fingertips.
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981017212812.885A-100000@hydro.gen.nz> <362882E3.2AF8F35C@choice.net>


> In my opinion, Richad Stallman has been pretty off the mark lately (even
> anti-linux).

Keep your personal flames out of gnome-list please.

Miguel.

From rebecca.ore@op.net
Received: (qmail 23739 invoked from network); 17 Oct 1998 23:04:47 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Oct 1998 23:04:47 -0000
Received: from ogoense.net (ogoense.net [209.152.195.21])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA13892
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 18:57:10 -0400
Received: (from rebecca@localhost)
	by ogoense.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA02585;
	Sat, 17 Oct 1998 19:09:12 -0400
From: Rebecca Ore <rebecca.ore@op.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13865.9112.192551.3689@ogoense.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 19:09:12 -0400 (EDT)
To: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
Cc: rebecca.ore@op.net, tlewis@mindspring.net, gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
In-Reply-To: <199810171802.NAA29445@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981016182928.21933M-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>
	<199810170107.UAA28685@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>
	<13863.64096.163624.979333@ogoense.net>
	<199810171802.NAA29445@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>
X-Mailer: VM 6.53 under 21.0 "Poitou" XEmacs Lucid

Miguel de Icaza writes:
 > 
 > >    If gwp is going to do all the things we need, then I would rather
 > > put our efforts there. 
 > 
 > The issue with a project like a word processor is that it is not only
 > a complex program, but also a very big project: there are many things
 > to be done and so far all the work has been done by Seth Alves.
 > 
 > I am sure Seth wants to make his word processor the best free word
 > processor available, so you guys just need to help on the coding to
 > get the features you need actually implemented.
 > 
      I'm not a coder, but have been looking for a wp so I don't have
to go over to my Windows partition to get manuscripts printed.

      There was a while back considerable discussion and enthusiasm
for either porting one of the wp's that functional (Maxwell or
Pathetic Writer) or rolling a new one.  The perception was that gwp
wasn't as far along in development.  If we were wrong, then we need
to get everything more coordinated.

      All this started, if I remember correctly, when I said to
Reklaw, "Hey, Maxwell's cool; can you port it to Gnome?"

      
-- 
Rebecca Ore 

From syncomm@mail1.choice.net
Received: (qmail 26060 invoked from network); 18 Oct 1998 00:08:24 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Oct 1998 00:08:24 -0000
Received: from mail1.choice.net (mail1.choice.net [209.173.128.106])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA17754
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:00:48 -0400
Received: from choice.net (syncomm@icebreaker.syncomm.org [209.173.132.4])
	by mail1.choice.net (ChoiceDotNet 513-723-8330) with ESMTP id UAA29837;
	Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:00:39 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: syncomm@mail1.choice.net
Message-ID: <3629308D.4A816622@choice.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:04:29 -0400
From: "Greg S. Hayes" <sdc@choice.net>
Organization: Syncomm Communications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.35 i586)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
CC: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981017212812.885A-100000@hydro.gen.nz> <362882E3.2AF8F35C@choice.net> <199810171818.NAA29457@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Keep your personal flames out of gnome-list please.
> 

	How is it a flame to say someone is off the mark lately?

Greg Hayes

From mill@pedgr571.sn.umu.se  Thu May 11 23:55:55 2000
Received: (qmail 6078 invoked from network); 18 Oct 1998 10:46:09 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Oct 1998 10:46:09 -0000
Received: from pedgr571.sn.umu.se (root@pedgr571.sn.umu.se [130.239.126.59])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA06902
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:38:25 -0400
Received: from pedgr571.sn.umu.se ([127.0.0.1]) by pedgr571.sn.umu.se
	 with esmtp (ident mill using rfc1413) id m0zUqhP-000xXLC
	(Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Sun, 18 Oct 1998 13:08:35 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <m0zUqhP-000xXLC@pedgr571.sn.umu.se>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96
To: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:04:29 EDT."
             <3629308D.4A816622@choice.net> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 13:08:34 +0200
From: Olof Oberg <mill@pedgr571.sn.umu.se>

Greg Hayes <sdc@choice.net> wrote:
> 	How is it a flame to say someone is off the mark lately?

Your post was totally uncalled for. We should listen to RMS 
because he (probably) knows Emacs better than anyone else. 
Your claim that we shouldn't was based on something totally 
irrelevant to the issue. Something that shouldn't be on this 
list.

 /mill

From david@mail.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 21414 invoked from network); 18 Oct 1998 12:00:21 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Oct 1998 12:00:21 -0000
Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA08956
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 07:52:35 -0400
Received: from client1452.globalnet.co.uk ([195.147.14.82] helo=gateway.sundayta.co.uk)
	by sand2.global.net.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
	id 0zUrNu-0005Fc-00
	for gnome-list@gnome.org; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 12:52:30 +0100
Received: from speedy.sundayta.co.uk (sundayta.co.uk) [192.168.100.125] (david)
	by gateway.sundayta.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #1 (Debian))
	id 0zUqy3-00007e-00; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 12:25:47 +0100
Sender: david@mail.redhat.com
Message-ID: <3629CF0F.6454F382@sundayta.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 11:20:47 +0000
From: David Warnock <david@sundayta.co.uk>
Organization: Sundayta Ltd
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.34 i686)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Vilain <sam@hydro.gen.nz>
CC: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981017212812.885A-100000@hydro.gen.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sam,

I hope you don't mind someone who knows even less than gnome butting in
with a comment.

To sumarise what I have read so far in this thread.

Several people are interested in writing a Gnome Word Processor
(possibly built on top of gwp or some other wp application). It has been
suggested to them that they might instead extend emacs. RMS suggests
that it is quite possible to do this to emacs. The suggestion to use
emacs has not been welcomed :-)

My thoughts on this are

1. Usable applications will arrive most quickly if the coders are doing
what they would like to do. Even if it is 10% of the work to get a wp by
method x you may well get a wp quicker by method y if the coders like y
more than x.

2. I fully believe that emacs could be extended to include wp features.
However I also believe that this is unlikely to be suitable for many new
gnome users. Gnome is a desktop designed to allow wider use of linux on
the desktop. Therefore many users of a Gnome WP will be new to linux. I
do not believe emacs well suited to that audience. However, wp
extentions to emacs would allow users who like emacs to do more work
within their preferred tool and would be a "good thing" for them.

3. A choice of wp options for gnome is not a bad thing. If there is a
single wp tool there will be temptations to bloat it so that it meets
all wp needs (in the process reducing reliability and ease of use). It
is possible to have several different wp's which focus on various
specialised (for example general office, legal, scientific, book
writing).

Regards

Dave

From dusk@smsi-roman.com
Received: (qmail 28303 invoked from network); 18 Oct 1998 17:30:03 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Oct 1998 17:30:03 -0000
Received: from smsi-roman.com (root@smsi-roman.com [206.191.206.11])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA19356
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 13:22:12 -0400
Received: from thunder.smsi-roman.com (thunder.smsi-roman.com [192.168.9.4])
          by smsi-roman.com (8.8.8/8.8.4) with SMTP
	  id MAA01009; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 12:16:06 -0500
Received: from smsi-dialin-3.smsi-roman.com by thunder.smsi-roman.com
          id aa29716; 18 Oct 98 12:10 CDT
Message-ID: <362A227C.942393D0@smsi-roman.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 12:16:45 -0500
From: John R Sheets <dusk@smsi-roman.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
CC: tlewis@mindspring.net, gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981016184856.21933N-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net> <199810170109.UAA28704@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Miguel de Icaza wrote:

> I would suggest before you start a huge thread -again- on what people
> want on a word processor (everybody has their opinion on how to do
> this and we will just get flooed with opinions again) that you look at
> the existing projects (gwp specially) and that you read Alan's article
> on Slashdot about this sort of projects.

Alternatively, someone could set up a gnome-office-list@gnome.org.  This would
offload all the potentially voluminous discussion about the GNOME office
suite. This makes good sense, because the office suite will be one of the
most-used applications of GNOME; it deserves as much discussion as it can get,
especially in the early design stages.  I fear that this will never happen on
gnome-list proper, and for good reason.  Gnome-list is already too trafficky.

Who's in charge of creating GNOME mailing lists?  Dr. Mike?  Could we create
this new gnome-office-list so we can offload this discussion to a
more-appropriate forum?

John

From jsight@pair.com  Thu May 11 23:55:55 2000
Received: (qmail 7595 invoked from network); 18 Oct 1998 19:17:39 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Oct 1998 19:17:39 -0000
Received: from relay.pair.com (relay1.pair.com [209.68.1.20])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA24655
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:09:48 -0400
Received: from jessesig ([209.192.46.149])
	by relay.pair.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA26066;
	Sun, 18 Oct 1998 14:59:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <009901bdfac7$376d7c80$952ec0d1@jessesig>
From: "Jesse D. Sightler" <jsight@pair.com>
To: <gnome-list@gnome.org>, "Olof Oberg" <mill@pedgr571.sn.umu.se>
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts 
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 14:43:34 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Olof Oberg <mill@pedgr571.sn.umu.se>
>To: gnome-list@gnome.org <gnome-list@gnome.org>
>Date: Sunday, October 18, 1998 6:38 AM
>Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
>

>Greg Hayes <sdc@choice.net> wrote:
>> How is it a flame to say someone is off the mark lately?
>
>Your post was totally uncalled for. We should listen to RMS
>because he (probably) knows Emacs better than anyone else.
>Your claim that we shouldn't was based on something totally
>irrelevant to the issue. Something that shouldn't be on this
>list.


I completely disagree.  RMS' knowledge of Emacs has nothing to do with
whether or not we should implement an entirely new Word Processor based on
something else.  RMS is WRONG, Emacs is not a viable option as a word
processor for the masses.

And that is definatley not a personal attack on RMS.

---------------------------
Jess
Email:  jsight@pair.com
Web:  http://www3.pair.com/jsight/
ICQ#: 20264228

From rebecca.ore@op.net
Received: (qmail 26147 invoked from network); 18 Oct 1998 20:07:16 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Oct 1998 20:07:16 -0000
Received: from ogoense.net (ogoense.net [209.152.195.21])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA26227
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 15:59:23 -0400
Received: (from rebecca@localhost)
	by ogoense.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA03244;
	Sun, 18 Oct 1998 16:11:30 -0400
From: Rebecca Ore <rebecca.ore@op.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <13866.19313.935675.258584@ogoense.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 16:11:29 -0400 (EDT)
To: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts 
In-Reply-To: <009901bdfac7$376d7c80$952ec0d1@jessesig>
References: <009901bdfac7$376d7c80$952ec0d1@jessesig>
X-Mailer: VM 6.53 under 21.0 "Poitou" XEmacs Lucid

Jesse D. Sightler writes:
 > >-----Original Message-----
 > >From: Olof Oberg <mill@pedgr571.sn.umu.se>
 > >To: gnome-list@gnome.org <gnome-list@gnome.org>
 > >Date: Sunday, October 18, 1998 6:38 AM
 > >Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
 > >
 > 
 > >Greg Hayes <sdc@choice.net> wrote:
 > >> How is it a flame to say someone is off the mark lately?
 > >
 > >Your post was totally uncalled for. We should listen to RMS
 > >because he (probably) knows Emacs better than anyone else.
 > >Your claim that we shouldn't was based on something totally
 > >irrelevant to the issue. Something that shouldn't be on this
 > >list.
 > 
 > 
 > I completely disagree.  RMS' knowledge of Emacs has nothing to do with
 > whether or not we should implement an entirely new Word Processor based on
 > something else.  RMS is WRONG, Emacs is not a viable option as a word
 > processor for the masses.
 > 
 > And that is definatley not a personal attack on RMS.]

I'm on the XEmacs beta mailing list and we've also had a discussion
about having a word processor function with XEmacs.  Editors like
Emacs and XEmacs are different animals.  One of the XEmacs developers
warned us that the whole thing was not a trivial undertaking.

My preference would be for a simplier UI than MS Word.

WPs are rare in free software because they're written for users who
don't particularly want to work with computers and because they're
quite complex in and of themselves.  If this was a daunting project
for some pretty good developers who have gone beyond Emacs in variable 
fonts and graphics inclusions, then I would like to make sure we think 
this one through.

-- 
Rebecca Ore

From bruce@cenderis.demon.co.uk
Received: (qmail 25585 invoked from network); 18 Oct 1998 21:29:09 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Oct 1998 21:29:09 -0000
Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA29736
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:21:11 -0400
Received: from [193.237.0.193] (helo=cenderis.demon.co.uk)
	by post.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.05demon1 #1)
	id 0zV0Fv-0002Qy-00
	for gnome-list@gnome.org; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 21:20:51 +0000
Received: (from bruce@localhost)
	by cenderis.demon.co.uk (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA00439;
	Sun, 18 Oct 1998 22:17:07 +0100
To: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
References: <009901bdfac7$376d7c80$952ec0d1@jessesig> <13866.19313.935675.258584@ogoense.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
From: Bruce Stephens <bruce@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
Date: 18 Oct 1998 21:19:23 +0100
In-Reply-To: Rebecca Ore's message of "Sun, 18 Oct 1998 16:11:29 -0400 (EDT)"
Message-ID: <m33e8lk4hg.fsf@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.43/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Lines: 37

Rebecca Ore <rebecca.ore@op.net> writes:

> My preference would be for a simplier UI than MS Word.

Indeed.  Word frightens me.  Perhaps it looks less intimidating on a
much larger monitor.

> WPs are rare in free software because they're written for users who
> don't particularly want to work with computers and because they're
> quite complex in and of themselves.

This may be what Gnome is aiming at, but I'm not sure that it's
necessarily true.  *I'd* like something which could be called a word
processor, too.  I'd like to be able to write letters, and produce
documentation.  On the other hand, I've always found the hardest part
of writing a document in, say, LaTeX, is finding a suitable example to
copy: once I've got the structure of the letter, it's generally very
easy to use.

Amaya <URL:http://www.w3c.org/Amaya> is an obvious example of
something which is vaguely in an appropriate direction.  Its structure
is something that you couldn't stick on top of Emacs (the internal
structure is apparently tree-structured, not character based).  I'd
like an Amaya with a much improved interface (adding undo would be
nice!), which could edit DocBook, and similar things.

Ideally, for documentation, I'd like something which could read and
write MIF, since at work we use FrameMaker quite a bit.  And it would
need to be able to do letters and things too.  (I understand sgmltools
may provide export to MIF; import would be nice, as far as such a
thing is possible.)

(I'm not suggesting that it would be a good idea to start with Amaya
and make it into a word processor.  It's just that Amaya does its
particular job better than XEmacs does, although Amaya's restrictions
can be annoying: some of the anecdotes in Nathaniel S. Borenstein's
"Programming as if people mattered" are apropos.)

From miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx
Received: (qmail 26072 invoked from network); 19 Oct 1998 00:41:13 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 1998 00:41:13 -0000
Received: from metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx (miguel@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx [132.248.29.92])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA05823
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 20:33:17 -0400
Received: (from miguel@localhost)
	by metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA31091;
	Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:35:20 -0500
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 19:35:20 -0500
Message-Id: <199810190035.TAA31091@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>
From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
To: dusk@smsi-roman.com
CC: tlewis@mindspring.net, gnome-list@gnome.org
In-reply-to: <362A227C.942393D0@smsi-roman.com> (message from John R Sheets on
	Sun, 18 Oct 1998 12:16:45 -0500)
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
X-Windows: Warn your friends about it.
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981016184856.21933N-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net> <199810170109.UAA28704@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx> <362A227C.942393D0@smsi-roman.com>


> Alternatively, someone could set up a gnome-office-list@gnome.org.  This would
> offload all the potentially voluminous discussion about the GNOME office
> suite. 

Not really.  

Note that Achtung (presentations program), gwp (word processor) and
gnumeric (spreadsheet) are being coded and designed silently in their
own mailing lists (I think gwp is missing one).

Also note that having users list their desired features is only going
to produce noise: Most of the features make sense and programmer
designers are aware of the design tradeoffs.  The only impedding
reason to implement a feature usually is lack of programmer time, not
lack of desire.

Miguel.

From Daniel.Veillard@w3.org
Received: (qmail 29692 invoked from network); 19 Oct 1998 03:17:25 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 1998 03:17:25 -0000
Received: from rufus.w3.org (veillard@rufus.w3.org [18.29.0.66])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA13579
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 23:09:28 -0400
Received: (from veillard@localhost)
	by rufus.w3.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA20130;
	Sun, 18 Oct 1998 23:09:17 -0400
Message-ID: <19981018230917.C11693@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 23:09:17 -0400
From: Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@w3.org>
To: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>, dusk@smsi-roman.com
Cc: tlewis@mindspring.net, gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
Reply-To: Daniel.Veillard@w3.org
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981016184856.21933N-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net> <199810170109.UAA28704@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx> <362A227C.942393D0@smsi-roman.com> <199810190035.TAA31091@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93
In-Reply-To: <199810190035.TAA31091@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>; from Miguel de Icaza on Sun, Oct 18, 1998 at 07:35:20PM -0500
Resent_From: Daniel.Veillard@w3.org
Organization: World Wide Web Consortium (W3C http://www.w3.org/)

Quoting Miguel de Icaza (miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx):
> 
> > Alternatively, someone could set up a gnome-office-list@gnome.org.  This would
> > offload all the potentially voluminous discussion about the GNOME office
> > suite. 
> 
> Not really.  
> 
> Note that Achtung (presentations program), gwp (word processor) and
> gnumeric (spreadsheet) are being coded and designed silently in their
> own mailing lists (I think gwp is missing one).

  I can create one for GWP and host it with archive on rufus.w3.org .
That's not the first one and I can probably manage this in a few minutes.
People interested send me mail directly. If the list already exist send me
a mail, I will subscribe,

  thanks,

Daniel

-- 
Daniel.Veillard@w3.org | W3C  MIT/LCS  NE43-344  | Today's Bookmarks :
Tel: +1 617 253 5884  | 545 Technology Square   | Linux, WWW, rpm2html,
Fax: +1 617 258 5999  | Cambridge, MA 02139 USA | badminton, Kaffe,
http://www.w3.org/People/W3Cpeople.html#Veillard | HTTP-NG and Amaya.

From tlewis@mindspring.net
Received: (qmail 6433 invoked from network); 19 Oct 1998 09:55:35 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 1998 09:55:35 -0000
Received: from camel7.mindspring.com (camel7.mindspring.com [207.69.200.57])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA28437
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:47:32 -0400
Received: from reflections.eng.mindspring.net (reflections.eng.mindspring.net [207.69.192.100])
	by camel7.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA20251;
	Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:47:30 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:47:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Todd Graham Lewis <tlewis@mindspring.net>
X-Sender: tlewis@reflections.eng.mindspring.net
To: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
cc: gnome-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
In-Reply-To: <199810190035.TAA31091@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981019053925.27710A-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>
Return-Receipt-To: tlewis@mindspring.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

On Sun, 18 Oct 1998, Miguel de Icaza wrote:

> Note that Achtung (presentations program), gwp (word processor) and
> gnumeric (spreadsheet) are being coded and designed silently in their
> own mailing lists (I think gwp is missing one).
> 
> Also note that having users list their desired features is only going
> to produce noise:

My big desire is not to have input into the feature set, but rather
to understand better the object model and how this type of program is
best designed.

I have no problem with input-less design.  I don't in any way think that
I have any real input on what features a word processor needs.  However,
it is very hard to get you, Miguel, or others among the developers to
share your thoughts on these design decisions, so that we can learn
from your examples what a GNOME program of this type should look like.
I find this frustrating.

If design decisions are being made, then can you at least write them up
and post them to the GNOME list, so that I can have something to go off
of?  I am struggling with what to put in the XML section of the FAQ right
now because no one wants to tell me and everyone else what's going on.
I try to stir up a little discussion (carefully phrased so as not to try
to tell the actual programmers what they should do), hoping to get back
a message like "No, that's not how you do it, this is how you do it...",
and instead I feel like I am being accused of wanting to design the
project for you, which I conspicuously and forcefully do not.  You are a
programmer, and I am a documenter, and I am perfectly aware of my place
in the grand scheme of things.  I just wish that I were thrown a few more
crumbs from those in the know as to what direction the project is taking,
so that I can try to send new developers in that direction by the FAQ.

More project updates, more "This is what we're doing with XML" messages
and the like, more coming off of the mountain and delivering tablets to
the Israelites; that would make my day.  I have faith that we will make
it to the promised land.  8^)

--
Todd Graham Lewis            3249'N,8336'W          (800) 719-4664, x2804
******Linux******         MindSpring Enterprises      tlewis@mindspring.net

From miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx
Received: (qmail 16340 invoked from network); 19 Oct 1998 16:56:55 -0000
Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239)
  by mail2.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 1998 16:56:55 -0000
Received: from metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx (miguel@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx [132.248.29.92])
	by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA16739
	for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:48:45 -0400
Received: (from miguel@localhost)
	by metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA31824;
	Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:51:18 -0500
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:51:18 -0500
Message-Id: <199810191651.LAA31824@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx>
From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx>
To: tlewis@mindspring.net
CC: gnome-list@gnome.org
In-reply-to: 
	<Pine.LNX.3.96.981019053925.27710A-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>
	(message from Todd Graham Lewis on Mon, 19 Oct 1998 05:47:38 -0400
	(EDT))
Subject: Re: BOB: GNOME Word Processor Efforts
X-Windows: No hardware is safe.
References:  <Pine.LNX.3.96.981019053925.27710A-100000@reflections.eng.mindspring.net>


> However, it is very hard to get you, Miguel, or others among the
> developers to share your thoughts on these design decisions, so that
> we can learn from your examples what a GNOME program of this type
> should look like.  I find this frustrating.

No, it is not.  Just ask and we shall reply. 

> I am struggling with what to put in the XML section of the FAQ right  
> now because no one wants to tell me and everyone else what's going
> on.

You can always mail directly the people listed in $module/AUTHORS.  If
you look for Daniel's posts on GNOME list you will find that it has
been pretty much all; you will notice that he has described his work
on Gnome-Xml since May.

> I try to stir up a little discussion (carefully phrased so as not to try
> to tell the actual programmers what they should do), hoping to get back
> a message like "No, that's not how you do it, this is how you do it...",
> and instead I feel like I am being accused of wanting to design the
> project for you, which I conspicuously and forcefully do not.  

Todd, I think we are misscomunicating.

I am only complaining that you are trying to reinvent a word processor
when an existing design exists and code is being written for it.  Work
should be directed towards putting all of the bells and whistles into
that project.  Gwp includes a couple of documents that detail the
design as well. 

So, Tood, just ask us, I am sure we will answer your specific
questions.

Miguel.