[scribus] 1.3.5 Windows spelling checker ?

[John Beardmore]

Jeffrey Silverman wrote:
> @John Beardmore:

> While I understand your perspective and some of your points, overall,
> you are coming across like this:
> 
> (Actually, I'm sorry in advance, because you really don't come across
> so persnickity/snotty/immature at all, but I thought it would be
> funnier this way)
> 
> JB: I have a hammer and I really need it to be able to drill holes
> LJ: Well, you know, a hammer is really for driving nails.
> JB: Well, its my hammer and I want it to be able to drill holes. Its
> an Open Source hammer, someone should be able to add a hole-drilling
> attachment.
> DM: I have this hole drilling attachment. Its beta and you need to use
> chicken wire and glue to attach it, but it works.
> JB: yay! See?
> LJ: But that's not what the hammer was originally designed for! I
> don't mind that there is a third party hole drilling attachment, and
> I'm glad it works for you, but you have to understand that the hammer
> was designed based on years of carpentry exeperience to not drill
> holes. So adding that feature just isn't a priority.
> JB: well it should be
> 
> etc.

Yes -  I know what you mean -  and I'm going on a bit to say the least. 
The thing is, scribus makes a damn fine drill regardless of what it may 
or may not have been designed for, or the historical context of its design.


> I mean, I understand -- you think a spellchecker makes sense from the
> way you use Scribus. But it really seems like you are missing the
> point that, while a spellchecker is a nice feature, it isn't there
> because that is not part of the publishing industry's idea of DTP
> workflow, and thus has not ever been a priority.
> 
> Actuallu, JB, you seem to miss this point on many of your responses in
> the "Scribus feature set" type threads.

I probably do. I'm not from the ivy encrusted tradition of the printing 
industry, and I don't know squit about work flow in large organisations 
or the expectations of people that work in large teams. I do know a page 
layout tool that's better than Pagemaker or InDesign though, and that's 
exciting.

It's not of course that I want Scribus to impede the work flows of large 
teams -  but I do feel there is a sort of sectarianism -  a faith in 'ye 
olde workflow' which devotees feel must be acknowledged, affirmed and 
upheld, and that broadly the followers of the faith, while acknowledging 
courteously that a spelling checker should be on the road map, would 
rather it was half way to St Albans.

I suppose I'm wiling to respect relevant experience, but rather less 
keen on tradition.

I don't know what percentage of scribus users are involved in 
'conventional work flows', but for what my opinion is worth, scribus 
should be about being able to lay out a good page rather than 
constraining the range of possible work flows by excluding other tools.

In other words, I can relate to the view that

     'there are higher priorities than spell checking'

but have no sympathy for

     'I think the whole idea of spell checker is not really
     within the scope of what Scribus is going for'.

There may well be higher priorities -  I can accept the first type of 
comment, but I do rather resent the second in which people seem to be 
trying to close down options on theological grounds.

For what it's worth, as some well known and regarded DTP packages to 
offer spell checking, I'm not even sure why it is felt that spell 
checking is so far outside the canon -  unless scribus is seen as some 
purer than pure abstract interpretation of what page layout should
be - a triumph of devotion over utility and flexibility.


Cheers, J/.
-- 
John Beardmore, MSc EDM (Open), B.A. Chem (Oxon), CMIOSH, AIEMA, MEI
Managing Director, T4 Sustainability Limited. http://www.T4sLtd.co.uk/
Carbon Trust Consultant: Energy Audit, Carbon Footprint, Design Advice
Energy Efficiency Accreditation Scheme, (EEAS), Registered Assessor
Phone: 0845 4561332   Mobile: 07785 563116   Skype: t4sustainability