Subject: Re: Inline Images??? [ was: Re: Graphic Images ]
From: Joaquín Cuenca Abela (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Apr 20 2001 - 13:08:37 CDT
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 12:12:12PM -0400, Patrick Lam wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 email@example.com wrote:
> > > Including external content *inside* a file is brain dead. *SPECIALLY*
> > > in an open format, as xml is.
> > > just load everything from a directory (like: filename-data/)
> > Church secretaries can't send directories in their email.
> Church secretaries don't use email.
Actually, I've got the impression that church secretaries *only* use
BTW, I don't want to store my document in a directory, but in a file.
> This argument (for anything that is dump on the developer side) is getting tiresome. Yes, some users are stupid. Should we do stupid things? No. That is the Microsoft way, that is the way of stupidification.
Actually, we should do intuitive things. Saving a doc as 10 files in a
directory is not intuitive. What will see the users when look for his
"document"? a directory. If somebody figures out that actually, this
directory represents his document, what does he will see when he
double-click in this "document"?
Sorry, but storing a doc as a directory will puzzle everybody.
Church secretaries, hackers, newbees, etc.
> I don't believe users are stupid.
> A church secretary that used email, probably has it on a modem, and sending a more than a few k's file is too much of a pain to do. So she'll print it, and send it by snailmail.
> The directory could probably even be a zip file in the style of .war (for those that are familiar with servlets).
> This could probably mean a change of the file format in such a way:
> a ZIP of a dir containing the xml doc and the files embedded.
now, that's another idea. Kword does something like that (it uses tar
instead of zip, but that's the only difference).
-- Joaquín Cuenca Abela firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Fri Apr 20 2001 - 13:09:26 CDT