On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 13:03, msevior@...79... wrote:
What does this mean? If it means what I think it means I can't see how more pressure could be applied than I already feel to "join the winning team".
Frankly the pressure just motivates me to work harder om AbiWord and Gnome Office.
OO.o falls way short of my vision of a Productivity Suite could be.
I think Bryce was referring more to fd.o than OOo.
Also, GO and OOo are two very different beasts with different architectures and different goals. The GO approach is to aim to be the best and collaborate to help that happen. The OOo approach, from my perspective, is a fully integrated office suite that is a drop-in replacement for MSO.
Taking into account the tools used as well as the end goal, again from my perspective only, Inkscape squarely drops into the GO bracket but is really quite unaligned with OOo.
But we are grossly digressing from the matter at hand:
o Is it pheasible for Inkscape and other GO applications to share features and libraries in a reasonable time frame?
Yes. Inkscape is already looking to do this (libgsf) and could collaborate on other aspects (eg libgoffice/clipart)
o Would Inkscape be a valuable addition to GO?
Yes. Incredibly; GO needs an SVG canvas of high quality and Inkscape is well placed to deliver this.
o Do GO and Inkscape have similar philosophies?
Yes. Both are seeking standards compliance to some degree such as reasonable HIG compliance and cooperating with standards bodies such as fd.o on several levels.
o What are the ways in which Inkscape and GO applications could collaborate in both the short and long term?
The developers need to put their heads together to identify these areas.
By whatever means a formal plan needs to evolve. I think the informal collaboration between AbiWord, Gnumeric, and Gnome-DB was ideal for that phase of GO development. But if more projects are going to come into the fold then surely it needs to be formalised on how they can align themselves with and contribute to GO.