[scribus] Quick route to story editor.

["Christoph Schäfer"]

> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. März 2017 um 17:50 Uhr
> Von: "scrib at wexfordpress.com" <scrib at wexfordpress.com>
> An: "Scribus User Mailing List" <scribus at lists.scribus.net>
> Betreff: Re: [scribus] Quick route to story editor.
>
>  
>   
>   
>   
> 
> ----------------------------------------
>  From: "Craig Bradney" <cbradney at scribus.info>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 12:19 PM
> To: "Scribus User Mailing List" <scribus at lists.scribus.net>
> Subject: Re: [scribus] Quick route to story editor.   
> 
> > On 15 Mar 2017, at 10:03, ale rimoldi <ale.comp_06 at xox.ch> wrote:
> >
> > hi john
> >
> >
> >> I know that at least one of the developers doesn't like the story 
> editor
> >
> > could you name him so that we can fire him?
> 
> You raised the ticket Ale :)
> 
> ALE was critical of the Story Editor before. I am used to it and like its 
> features. I didn't want to deal with
>  massive changes both for my own comfort and for the accuracy of what I put 
> in a book I am writing.
> >
> >
> > no, not eliminating.
> > but replacing it with something that can show the formatting as tags (but 
> no wysiwyg)
> 
> Maybe. That's your idea...
>   
>  I hope that something gets settled well in advance of the release of 
> 1.6.0. TeX  style
>  tags like "\bi{foo}" to print the word foo in bold italics could be 
> added.
>   
>  In general additions don't do much harm. Deletions tend to obsolete 
> existing skills and old documents.
> 
> John C.


I'm absolutely with John here (cf. https://bugs.scribus.net/view.php?id=14673). Removing this CM item is simply removing a feature and disturbing many workflows or editing habits.

I also agree with ale that the SE needs to be replaced with something better, but since we have no one to accomplish this task at the moment, what's the point of removing a CM entry? I just re-created a photobook originally created with a dedicated photobook software, and you can believe me that the SE, even in its current form, saved a lot of time.

Moreover, I'm asking myself what brain-dead train of thought lies behind the request to remove the entry. Many users (including myself) would like to see a better SE. A rational approach would be to write a new SE and then replace the current one. Instead, access to the SE has been made more complicated without a replacement being available. This reminds me of the madness currently going on in Washington and Westminster.


Christoph