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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: [RFC] Adding a new filter status
From:       Clarence Dang <dang () kde ! org>
Date:       2002-07-14 5:54:13
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 06:48, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> On Samstag, 13. Juli 2002 12:22, Clarence Dang wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 08:05, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> > > I am wondering if we should not introduce a new filter status between
> > > "beta" and "good".
> >
> > I think this is an excellent idea!
> >
> > > The problem that I have found is that you need to have at least the
> > > status "beta" before users report bugs and that users consider that
> > > "good" means that everything should function perfectly. However all
> > > these make "beta" being very broad.
> >
> > I'm thinking that it might also be a good idea to have a table of what
> > "basic" features each filter imports/exports e.g. character formatting,
> > paragraph formatting, page formatting (includes
> > headers/footers/pagination), images etc so that if someone wants to help
> > with kword filters, they have a better idea of what can be improved and
> > users know what filters work best for their purposes (eg. I did not know
> > that the HTML exporter could do images until yesterday when I used it).
>
> I do not understand the difference with the filter status files (all the
> status.html files in each filter directory)
>
> The filter status already have all the data. Why would you want a central
> table, which would be in the ACL-protected part of the CVS?
>
Different status.html's lay out the information in different ways and/or leave 
out information.  I'm suggesting a table where the information can quickly be 
seen at a glance, instead of having to go through each status.html.
Just curious, but aren't the status.html's also ACL-protected?

> > > As for the name of the new status, I have "gamma" or "working". Perhaps
> > > someone could find a better name.
> > >
> > > The new status would indicate a filter whose maintainer thinks that,
> > > despite having holes, it should work good otherwise.
> >
> > "working" sounds good to me.
> >
> > Or renaming what is currently "good" to "excellent" and making the new
> > category "good".
>
> No, I do not think so. Users are already taking "good", as if it was
> meaning perfect.
>
I see.
I'm going for "working" then, as well.

Thanks!
Clarence
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]