[scribus] 1.3.5 Windows spelling checker ?

[Jeffrey Silverman]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:26 PM, John Beardmore <John at t4sltd.co.uk> wrote:
> 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


Hm. Those last two paragraphs still seem to miss the point.
"Theological" grounds implies a belief system not grounded in facts.
But the comments from the Scribus devs does not lead me to conclude
dogmatic, religious, theological, or
however-you-want-to-put-it-arbitrary decision making on the part of
excluding the features that you want.  Scribus is the way it is
becasue it was built as a DTP tool, a natural grandchild of previous
page layout tools before it. And DTP does not, typically, need a
spellchecker as that part is supposed to be done.

That's it. Nothing religious about it. Nothing dogmatic. No "we know
better". I think I've missed where you picked up that vibe.

Seeyalater

-- 
Jeff Silverman
jeffrey.d.silverman at gmail.com