[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-edu-devel
Subject:    Re: [kde-edu-devel] And so it begins (libkdeedu)
From:       Klas Kalass <klas.kalass () gmx ! de>
Date:       2002-05-30 18:10:39
[Download RAW message or body]

Am Donnerstag, 30. Mai 2002 16:16 schrieb Eva Brucherseifer:
> > On Thursday 30 May 2002 04:17 pm, Matthias Messmer wrote:
> > > Do you mean things linke that?
> > >
> > > <e>
> > >   <s>A car cost 20000 Euro. The Price increased 10%.</s>
> > >   <q>How much does it cost now?</q>
> > >   <a>22000</a>
> > > </e>
> >
> > Yes, that's the type of thing that I'm looking for.  If we can
> > standardize a markup for things like that we at some point can do the
> > processing in a/the library.  Anyone else?  What type of data needs to go
> > in these things? (other than what you've mentioned Matthias)?  This is
> > more clear for vocabulary data, but trying to imagine a set of
> > possibilities for may be a bit more difficult, so we need all of the
> > input we can get.
>
> Klas, doesn't the data of keduca fit into that schema as well?
> It would have several answers then, which can be true or false.
Hmm, I did not follow the discussions that lead up to this schema, could 
someone point me to the mails explaining the pros of doing this standardized?

I am not sure if it is a good idea to try and support too many applications 
with this. XML is the one generic format and QDom is pretty easy to use. I 
support the idea to standardize on a format for vocabulary data and make a 
lib out of it, but I see no need to make it generic. I want to make keduca 
more versatile and more powerfull and I fear that agreeing to one kind of 
format will hinder future work. After all I think that at one point keduca 
should really be a koffice application so that kformular can be used (think 
maths). Or maybe some day someone writes a koffice part for note editing (and 
maybe even guitar tablature) which I would really like to use for keduca (for 
music tests). I also want to use a more clever way of including pictures than 
just saving them into the same directory as it is now.

So I think that tying keduca to this new lib would not be beneficial.

What was the conclusion on having kedu applications depend on koffice? Because 
the more I think about it the more I like the idea of going for a koffice 
application for the keduca editor.

About the KEdu prefix: I think that this is very close to KEduca which I use 
for new classes. Apart from that it is fine with me and if keduca changes too 
much it might be good to change the name anyways (AFAIK the original author 
still does some work on a (QT-only ?) version for Windows and MacOS X, but 
did not follow my invitation to rejoin the KDE team).

I also support having KEduVoc as a prefix for those parts that are specific to 
vocabulary applications.

Greetings,
Klas
_______________________________________________
kde-edu-devel mailing list
kde-edu-devel@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-edu-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]