Hi, 2013/1/10 Guy Waterval <waterval....@gmail.com>
> Hi all, > Hi Ricardo, > > 2013/1/8 RGB ES <rgb.m...@gmail.com> > > > 2013/1/7 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> > > > > > > Snip > > > > > b) define a table of contents or rough content outline for each core > > > deliverable > > > > > > > We can start from this draft > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Details+on+Scenario+3#DetailsonScenario3-ProposedTOC > > > > maybe focusing on the first two chapters for now. > > > > Looking at the TOC, I really think that it's a good approach to get a > reduced volume of documentation and make it easier to update. Such > organisation could also perhaps reduce the learning curve of the program. > Let's hope that: AOO is really easy to use, but only when you know how to use it :) > I wonder if we could also introduce or not the following in the chapter > "General concepts" > > > - links which are present in the different modules. > - tables : a general introduction and global manipulations (specific > issues for Writer being developped in the Writer module). > - Fields : introduction in each module or a general introduction in the > general concepts chapter?. > My idea was to left the "general concepts" chapter as general as possible, to use it as reference on the other chapters. On the Writer chapter there is an area devoted to tables and fields. For a quick comment on those subjects, the "cheat sheets" chapter could be better, IMO. > > Another issue about terminology. > Is it possible to consider tables, fields and links as inserable objetcts > or not. Of course in Writer they belong to the text layer, but in Draw and > Impress, they have an object behaviour as images. These elements are for me > always difficult to classify. Which category do you recommand? For fields > and links I usually use "special text zones" but I'm not sure if this is > the correct approach. > Agree, and indeed that's another reason to talk about tables on each component and not on the general chapter. Tables on Draw and Impress are rather limited compared with tables on Writer. Talking about terminology, field can be considered as "automated text". Some fields (chapter and page field, for example) can be considered as "contextual text" also: their value depends on the point they are inserted. Links are difficult to categorize: we have links as in html links but also links as cross references, as footnote anchors... maybe it's better to not categorize them at all :) Regards Ricardo > > Many thanks > -- > gw > > > > > > > >
