bmcken at pobox.com
Sun Apr 17 23:46:43 UTC 2011
On 4/17/2011 3:34 PM, Marie and Paul Di Somma wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2011 15:16:24 -0700, Barry McKenna wrote:
> "Actually, since there would often be more than one "object"
> in the "Document Structure" the name would be more appropriately "Document
> Objects Structure.""
> I suggest "Document objects structure" is a noun string.
> Document structure I understand.
> Document Objects
> I understand.
> But "Document Objects Structure" makes no sense to me.
> BTW, I come from a technical writing
> Paul Di Somma
Paul, I appreciate the feedback. My work involves attempting
to make the incomprehensible, the profound, more accessible,
so if what I suggest is not intelligible to you, then I
would appreciate a little more specificity than "no sense."
I happen to live in a very progressive small town where
there are numerous people still who have not made the
conceptual 'leap' to using/owning a computer, even if just
for browsing the internet.
Language can be a tool or an obstruction. My experience is
that, as you imply, too often language is an impediment to
learning and understanding.
The concepts of object-oriented programming underwent - and
still are undergoing - many heuristic evolutions.
With Scribus, and in this list - to which I have not been a
major contributor - one of the most frequent requests for
help, as they appear to me, are implicitly help in
conceptualization of features of Scribus. There are many
parts of Scribus that I have not made use of and so those
parts are usually unintelligible to me because I have not
yet put my hands or my mind on them, or as happens
sometimes, I have yet to fully grok the culture of Scribus
or of Electronic publishing (one of my former employers in
the business hated the term desktop publishing).
So I would appreciate how Document Objects Structure makes
no sense to you.
I see the issue of this program feature/menu item as
comprised of three fundamental components:
1. A Document
2. Components that are used to build the document, which I
have suggested can be heuristically aided by the concept of
Objects which have properties and methods.
3. Accessing the program feature/menu item will result in
the display of a dialog of the Structure of the Objects in
So, literally, "The Structure of the Objects in the
Document" is what we are discussing, in terms of
conceptually arriving at a feature name/menu item to use for
both understanding and using Scribus, and for discussing
various of these issues.
I can appreciate the issue of adjective-noun strings, and/or
of noun strings that contain numerous nouns, but for me
anyway, the three here are concise, in terms of a menu item,
and with less than these three we would not be offering as
much of an aid in conceptualizing how to consider a Scribus
However, if those who have been "building" the code and the
conceptualization of Scribus these many years think that the
concept of objects does not offer additional heuristic
value, then Document Structure might be their preference as
For me, the concept of considering discrete sections of code
having both properties and methods was a watershed - and at
times a painful one - in terms of designing my own software.
The authors of Scribus and other users such as yourself may
not see any value of the concept of objects for users in
this instance. However, the idea arose for me because the
term "objects" was used four times in Greg's wiki on the
More information about the scribus