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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: Removal of KFormula - was: Formula Shape - Inferred rows
From:       Inge Wallin <inge () lysator ! liu ! se>
Date:       2007-07-22 8:21:05
Message-ID: 200707221021.05290.inge () lysator ! liu ! se
[Download RAW message or body]

On Saturday 21 July 2007 21:56, Martin Pfeiffer wrote:
> > > This is something I'm not against, but unrelated. Someone should be in
> > > charge of it, be it called KFormula or FormulaShape, and I think that
> > > person is you.
> >
> > Well, I am against it.  At least if my uses of it can't be solved by the
> > flake shape.  One thing I have used KFormula to do is to create formulas
> > that I have then exported to bitmaps and imported into other
> > applications.
>
> This will be still possible with the flake shape. There is already a
> separate loading/ saving available for the shape.

Ok

> > Also, since MathML is an established file format, we should have an
> > application that can read it, and show it. The latter also suggests that
> > we should keep KFormula as a kpart so thaut it can be used in konqueror
> > and other places to display MathML files.
>
> Well this reader functionality don't has to be a part of KOffice. I think
> it would be possible to reuse the flake shape to show MathML content in
> other applications.

It doesn't have to, but it is right now and I don't see anybody doing anything 
outside KOffice.  As long as there is no other viewer for it, we should not 
remove it.

> > So I suggest that we create a policy that says that if there is a file
> > format that is best handled by one of the KOffice components, we should
> > keep this component as an application, a KPart and also a flake shape.
>
> Well the thing with keeping KFormula is that someone has to integrate all
> the flake stuff into KFormula which would be just a wrapper.

That is true.  I have started doing exactly that right now for KChart.  Let's 
see how difficult it is.  I think KChart and KFormula are very alike in many 
aspects.  It is not impossible that it will be possible to reuse some of the 
work.

Hmm, that gives me an idea.  There is now a KoPageApplication, isn't there?  
How about a KoFlakeApplication that only has a KoCanvasBase and that only 
handles one flake? Would that be feasible?

> > Another, but perhaps less important reason, is that if we start to remove
> > applications, we may soon not be able to call KOffice 'the most
> > comprehensive office suite in existence'. :-)
>
> We would not loose functionality but a application.

Sure, but we base that line on the number of applications.

> Cheers!

-- 
Inge Wallin               | Thus spake the master programmer:               |
                          |      "After three days without programming,     |
inge@lysator.liu.se       |       life becomes meaningless."                |
                          | Geoffrey James: The Tao of Programming.         |
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]