On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 1:38 PM Valentin Petzel <valen...@petzel.at> wrote:
> Nothing really heated here, but probably some communication issue. I try > to > listen to what you try to explain, but I hardly get anything about your > actual > problem and mostly critique how the solutions are not clean enough for you > without really reasoning why this would be that way. > > I’ve sent you an example of how we basically can get what Jean described > (which involves adding some functionality to the header and footer markups > which can be put into an include and then on line overrides (which can > also be > put into includes). You’ve then dismissed this as too much logic (when > this > actually just requires a very miniscule amount of additional > functionality. > Then when you talked about cover pages I gave you an example of a markup > function that spreads markups vertically over the page (which can then be > used > to push stuff to the bottom). > > I’m spending lots of my time trying my best to help you, and it’s really > frustrating then to get told to focus on „what you tried to explain”, > especially when you give core specifications like "I just want to set > simple > fields” randomly in the end. And this really takes away a lot of > motivation > for trying to help people on the mailing list. > > Please don't misunderstand my words: I stated many and many times that your (and Aaron's ones) examples HELPED me A LOT. Including these last ones, with which I could understand how the footer and header do work, and how they can be customized. Then you can easily understand the value of your contribution. And, of course, without these examples, I would not have focused the problem we are discussing. What I meant is different. It appears to me that when I say something, it is seen as a criticism against LP. This is absolutely not true. I just try to focus a problem which, IMHO, deserves to be discussed. That said, forgive me if I speak frankly: it appears strange to me that you and Aaron (both have huge experience with LP coding) really say that *any* of my objections is wrong. Or that you systematically start from this assumption. Probably I'm wrong with this perception, but maybe I'm not totally wrong and, in any case, this is my perception. Why do I have this perception? Let me explain. I well know and I'm sure that you have huge experience and knowledge of LP and coding. At the same time, my objections regarding the customization of headers and footers were very simple. No logic or coupling or low-level stuff at all is required. This is how stylesheets and templates do work. Therefore, no matter if you add tiny or huge logic to add. I just talked about additional logic, in the previous posts. So: why all these objections? If you add tiny logic to this method, then you corrupt it. But I'm sure that you already know this, because you surely know how stylesheets do work. This is not a "random" specification given at the end. This is the reason for which I stated from the beginning that I did not want to work on the footer, nor to couple different elements of the template. Instead of saying: "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong etc." (and then I have systematically to answer: "no, it's you who are wrong", "no, it's you who are wrong" etc.) please, read with another perspective my observations. That said, I see with real regret that you loose motivation in this. I well know what it means. Of course feel free to ignore my questions (and I still thank you for your help so far) but, I would not use this behavior in general with other people. As a personal thought, I can say that my contribution to LP are totally independent of the general feedback received, as you can see when I publish an ANN of a new release of my editor (which costs to me lot of work, obviously): I simply do what I think is good to do. And I hope you'll do the same (which completely takes away possible frustration). Best, P > Valentin > > Am Samstag, 18. Dezember 2021, 12:47:34 CET schrieb Paolo Prete: > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 10:25 AM Jean Abou Samra <j...@abou-samra.fr> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Okay, I'll let myself sucked in this (in my opinion > > > unnecessarily) heated thread > > > > I really thank you for this post. It not only explains what I had in mind > > regarding the technical side of the thread; it also highlights a bigger > > problem: unnecessary heated mood. And I add that it is not only > > unnecessary: when there are flames without fire, it is nonsense and > > ridiculous too. I'm sorry if I use this harsh words, but this is what I > see > > in all this discussion. I would like to invite the participants to note > > that I absolutely did NOT say any word against LP. Nor directly, nor > > indirectly, nor explicitly, nor in a hidden or subtle way. At the same > > time, I invite them (Including the helpful Aaron and Valentin) to focus > on > > what I really tried to explain (as you did) instead of negating any > > assertion that seems (but it is really not) intended to reduce the LP > > value. > > > > Best, > > Paolo
