From: Andrew Dunbar (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed May 15 2002 - 00:16:45 EDT
--- Martin Sevior
<email@example.com> wrote: >
> From the interview with Bart he said he'd be very
> interested in joint
> efforts for Office filters. Well wv is of course
> GPL'd so they can't link
> it directly, however it would be rather easy to wrap
> wv with a bonobo
> layer which can be executed from within hancom with
> no problems. We of
> course could just link it directly :-)
> Dom might want to do this anyway to provide an MS
> Word filter for any
> Gnome application.
> The great win for us is that we get paid developer
> support on wv.
> However wv is Dom's lib and it will be some work for
> him to support this.
> On Tue, 14 May 2002, Paul Rohr wrote:
> > At 03:11 PM 5/13/02 -0700, I wrote:
> > >Instead, I'll put the ball back in your court.
> Can you think of a better
> > >way to take Bart up on his offer of help? I'm
> pretty sure he's serious, and
> > >I never want to pass up paid help from a company
> that knows something about
> > >word processors.
> > After some private email with Alan, here are a few
> better ideas:
> > 1. See if they're interested in working on Pango.
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Having shipped a Korean word processor on Windows
> (no longer supported from
> > what I hear), Hancom is now moving into the Linux
> world in a big way.
> > Insofar as we have a strong interest in:
> > - having Pango run well on non-Linux platforms,
> > - having it do a great job of supporting CJK
> > perhaps this is an area where they could apply
> their existing expertise in
> > ways that would help us, the GNOME project, and
> themselves. I'm betting
> > that Hancom engineers may not be free to
> contribute to our GPL codebase, but
> > Pango is LGPL, so that should still a licensable
> option for them.
> This is a good idea but I beleive they have already
> decided on QT 3 which
> provides this. I don't know how good QT 3 is
> compared to pango though.
I was under the impression that QT 3 handled Unicode
but not that it takes care of the funky glyph
replacement, reordering, etc that Pango does... but
I'm not 100% sure.
> > 2. See if they'd be willing to fund some
> high-quality TTF fonts.
> > As we all know, there just aren't enough
> high-quality Unicode fonts
> > available for use on Unix. Indeed, I suspect that
> the situation is even
> > worse for complex scripts like Korean.
> This is a good idea but I think we're unlikely to
> get much joy here. There
> is no incentive for a font foundary to provide GPL
> or LGPL'd fonts so my
> guess is that unless they purchased the fonts
> outright we would get much
> > I suspect that any fonts they already have use
> other encodings, but
> > depending on how they licensed those fonts in the
> first place, perhaps
> > they'd be willing to fund an effort to convert
> them to Unicode and release
> > them. (Or not. That might be a key part of the
> value-add for their
> > distro.) Still, that's right up Bart's alley.
> > action
> > ------
> > Would any of our i18n folks be interested in
> pursuing either of these ideas
> > with Bart? Alan's looking to bow out of that
> conversation, and I'm way over
> > my AbiWord time budget for the week.
> > Thanks,
> > Paul
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed May 15 2002 - 00:20:14 EDT