Hi Camille,
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 16:54 +0200, camille.mou...@free.fr wrote:
> I completely agree with you here. That's why I was happy but when Caolán
> McNamara implemented yesterday a change I had been wainting for (no auto
> conversion of numbers in Writer's tables by default) but also worried
> that it hadn't been validated at UX level.
Well - Caolan's patch requires no validation in my view; there is no
need for a consensus :-)
> I think it would be good for everyone if we can reach a broad consensus
> on this, including from OOo's UX team. I have started formalizing my
> arguments in favour of this change there :
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User:Camillem/aboutFramework#Read_Only_files_should_be_open_in_R.2FW_mode
This is more useful; lets whack it in the new LibreOffice wiki when it
comes on-line though; generating consensus with Oracle on the topic is
(most likely) an expensive, draining and un-necessary experience :-)
> > For example, can anybody provide any arguments for keeping the current
> > behavior?
>
> That's also what I'd like to know. I'll post on OOoUX list about that tonight.
So - I suspect that the writer read-only mode is at least a little
complex. AFAIR there are forms with fields in that can be filled on (ie.
edited) in 'read-only' mode - yet the document itself cannot be edited:
but (quite possibly) this is some other read-only / document locked type
state that we could express differently.
HTH,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
