[scribus-dev] Editable Master Pages
avox at arcor.de
Thu Aug 7 19:34:03 CEST 2008
did you have a bad day? I also think there's a lot left which has to
be discussed, but I wouldn't take Christoph's opinion so personal. He
thinks he has a simple solution, we have to convince him that it's
not so easy.
And you have to take into account Christoph's long-lasting internet
Am 07.08.2008 um 17:19 schrieb Louis Desjardins:
> 2008/8/7 "Christoph Schäfer" <christoph-schaefer at gmx.de>
> OK, the quotations have become a bit extensive, so let me try to
> start from scratch, because the discussion seems to dissolve the
> concept of master pages.
> I was under the exact opposite impression...
> What do we want to achieve (or more precisely what do our users
> want to achieve)?
> Yes. Please tell us.
> 1) Editing objects on master pages for one or more particular
> regular pages.
> 2) Editing means just that: everything they could do to with an
> object on a regular page. This includes deleting an item or moving
> it to the regular page (which is the same as desynchronising).
> 3) Perhaps a user would want to add an item from a regular page to
> a range of master pages or a static master page. I don't know why
> someone would do this, but you never know what users come up with.
> There's nothing more we need to address.
> Disagree. Please read below. Plus, I think that this approach to
> the discussion is closing it and I personnally have a problem with
> this. How can you say there's nothing more to address while it is
> obvious there is more to address from the discussion? So, not only
> do I disagree with the idea you express here, but also with the way
> you express it.
> Frankly, it really takes away the fun of this discussion and I am
> sorry to insist on that but I think at some point someone has to
> say that. That might be your way, but I dislike it to a point that
> I am going to retire from this discussion if you pursue in that
> direction. You should learn to listen, that is the least I can tell
> you now. When someone is ready to propose something, he must be
> ready to hear what the others have to say. Obviously, you want us
> to praise your idea and that's just about it. If you think I sound
> rude now, trust me, I do. I am completely disappointed by such a
> stubborn attitude.
> Now, please read below. There is more.
> So there are only a few questions: How can a user access an item
> (or more) on a master page quickly without having to jump through
> many loops? How will the changes be applied? For the second
> question, there are 3 possible choices: 1) Edit the content on the
> master page -> changes will apply to all master pages 2) Apply the
> changes locally but keep the item otherwise in sync with the MP
> (there should be a "refresh mechanism" to override local changes,
> but I think this could be done by applying the MP again in the Page
> > Apply Master Page dialog). 3) Detach the item from the master
> page and make it a part of the current page (and, perhaps, vice
> As for using styles, master pages are already styles in a sense:
> change a style and all text/lines with that style will change,
> change one MP, and all pages that use the MP will change. I agree
> that one could use the style "mechanism" like overriding styles
> with local formatting, but this has a serious drawback, which is
> already hurting us: if a paragraph style is being changed or
> another style is applied to the text, what happens to the local
> Well, for paragraph styles, the most common change is enriching
> text. Nothing to hurt. I agree however that changes to a MP could
> be far less trivial and thus it may not be advisable to have this
> Style+ I was thinking about. But before throwing the idea away, I
> would still consider it and give it a second thought. After all, it
> is up to the user to determine what he wants on the MP. He'll see
> right away if the change made is in contradiction with his own
> layout. So, in fact, I see no real problem to the Style approach.
> Which one is preferred, the new style or the local change?
> Good question. It could well be an option. And if it isn't, I am
> still incline to think the Style+ way is fine.
> There is no easy answer, and that's why I don't think the style
> mechanism should be used. It just gets in the way for quick changes
> and is probably overhead.
> Could be. We are precisely discussing the case. So far, I think we
> need more thoughts and case scenarios.
> Louis' idea of using the context menu is correct, but we should
> keep in mind that it's already quite bloated.
> A context menu can be less bloated in a given context. We can strip
> it down in the MP context, for instance.
> My purpose was to use existing features that are already there, ie.
> Yes. You made that point clear. I think we all got that by now.
> Detaching objects from a master page by moving them to a document
> layer is quite easy. Frankly, I don't care if DTP people did fine
> without layers for years. The technology is available in Scribus,
> it works reliably, and it's known to our users (and will be fully
> documented in the manual). Why not use it to save time and provide
> something easier than InDesign's insanely complex way?
> It would be great to explain what works and what doesn't in the
> "insanely complex way" of ID.
> It would take four mouse clicks to detach an object ort to delete
> it (1. switch to the editing mode, 2. right-click, then 3. in the
> context menu Send to Layer/Delete, 4. switch off editing mode). The
> same goes for editing items: quickly switch to the editing mode for
> master pages, edit the item, then decide if the changes will be
> applied to the current page, to the master page itself or a range
> of pages that use the master page. Aside from the editing itself,
> it'd take four mouse clicks (1. enter editing mode with a click on
> a button, then edit, 2. click the button again, which brings up a
> dialog to choose from, 3. make your choice and then 4. OK). I can't
> think of anything easier.
> The linking of text frames is IMNSHO totally unrelated to editable
> master pages.
> Then, tell us why you think so. Other than that, it's only an opinion.
> This is again a demonstration of your difficulty to listen to what
> others have to say. There are tons of case scenarios where linking
> is important at MP level and where it does save lots of time. The
> importance of this will also increase as Scribus text handling
> capabilities get better. Text formatting for one thing could be
> done in one single "formatting" document (just like galleys used to
> be) and then this formatted text could be copied and pasted to an
> entirely structured and linked empty "layout" document. Being able
> to link text frame in the MP can save hours of work, depending on
> the complexity of the document. Catalogs, for one piece of work,
> with lots of text levels and formatting can be done in days instead
> of weeks. Having said that, you can of course maintain your "not so
> humble opinion". This is up to you, of course.
> To be honest, I think it is very harmful to the discussion to come
> up strongly with your "not so humble opinion" in a case where it is
> obvious you seem to miss some valuable information.
> This should be discussed in a separate thread.
> Yes, please, continue showing us the way. How do discuss, what to
> discuss. What to do. What to priorize. What is good and what is
> wrong. Tell us, Master.
> Andreas' idea of roles is probably the way to go, but before that
> can be introduced, the linking of text frames should be fixed and
> brought on par with ID. That will be enough work, I think, for the
> near future. Andreas has quite a few great ideas here, IIRC. In
> this context, we probably also need to discuss changes to the page
> numbering, as we'd need to be able to have parallel numbering
> schemes for facing pages with different languages. I think there's
> already a bug report for this.
> scribus-dev mailing list
> scribus-dev at lists.scribus.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the scribus-dev