faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: Tenor
by Aaron J. Seigo on Wednesday 13/Apr/2005, @20:01
|
there are earlier drafts available that reflect sketches of various states of design.
the most recent version was in CVS, but is in the process of being moved. don't worry, as we have things for people to play with we'll let people know =) |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Tenor
by uddw on Thursday 14/Apr/2005, @12:23
|
What number of people does "we" include? Looking at the length of the authors list of beagle it will be surely hard to finish an even more ambitious project like tenor in time for KDE 4. What part will developers of the existing applications play? What can they do or at least think about today to prepare for tenor?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Tenor
by Aaron J. Seigo on Thursday 14/Apr/2005, @16:19
|
i've got a whole tribe of oompa loompas in the basement working on this. scott's working on the import permits for his own oompa loompa tribe. (Germany tends to be a bit more of a stickler on these things than Canada.)
seriously though, there's a rather small number of us. and yes, the application developers will end up adding the vast bulk of value to it by building services on top of it.
things like the Content Manager will be a generic user interface to Tenor's stored information, and there will be many specific ones (e.g. annotations in pdfs and elsewhere).
we just have to have make the engine work, others will build upon that to expose the functionality. sort of like most of the rest of KDE's library-base technologies. =)
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|