Re: Fwd: Re: Comparative review of XML editors

On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 11:39 +0100, Jeff Martin wrote:
> Just thought I'd stick my oar in ;).
> 
> 
> > > > Mainly because people feel conglomerate is hectic and lost its way.
> 
> Think this might be a poor choice to words. To be honest we're moving
> far to slowly to be hectic. As for losing the way, I don't think we have
> but maybe we've been remiss in communicating where we are and where we
> are going. May this is a good opportunity to re-examine where we are and
> what we'd like to be achieving.

Yeah.  I basically have almost zero time these days to hack on
Conglomerate.  Without more programmers we're screwed.

> 
> > > In my view, conglomerate is the most promising document oriented XML
> > > editor around.  
> 
> I'd have to second that.
> 
> > On many occasions I have recommended the the use of Conglomerate. 
> 
> I'd say that whilst Conglomerate is aimed at all users, very much
> including the non-technical as these are the people who are currently
> catered for least by most xml editors. I'd say that Conglomerate as it
> stands at the moment is not ready for everyone to use as it is very much
> in development and not everyone appreciates what that means.

Totally.  Perhaps we need to express that better on the website.

> 
> > The
> > responses, after trying it, have always come back in favor of XMLmind.
> > Statements I have received during IRC discussions with regard to Conglomerate
> > have included some trivial and some major issues:
> 
> Feedback always welcome.
> 
> > * to slow in opening documents
> 
> Yup, not on purpose though ;)
> 
> > * over complicates the editing process
> 
> Not by design, but maybe by implementation.
> 
> > * too many boxes and colors between text distracts me from writing
> 
> Possibly, might be due to a poor dispspec or maybe it's just a very
> complex and densely tagged document. Not quite sure how to get around
> the problem if a doc has something like
> <span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Some
> text</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>
> That's never going to be nice.

But is unlikely to occur in a real document.  We want things to work
well for real-world cases.

> 
> > * conglomerate crashes for no apparent reason losing work, it did it twice
> >  and I decided to give it a miss
> 
> Yup, still early days
this is five years in :-(

> 
> > * its the most stupid app, close and quit both terminate the application when
> > all I wanted to do was close the current document
> 
> Actually close only terminates the application when the document you are
> closing is the last one to be open. Maybe it should ask if you want to
> open/create another document or just leave (Though I've never seen
> another app to this.)

Possibly a confusion between Mac-style behaviour and
everyone-other-OS-style behaviour.  I believe we comply with the GNOME
UI guidelines on this one.

> 
> > I don't like the way I have to open dialogs in order to view or edit
> > attributes.
> 
> Fair point, attributes should probably be dock-able like tool options in
> the gimp.
> 
> Cue bad mock-up 
> http://www.custommonkey.org/~jeff/files/Screenshot-1.png

Nice mockup, thanks!  I'd put the hierarchy tabs above the attribute
display though.  Is this idea in bugzilla?  If not, please file it, and
attach the mockup.

> 
> > * it does not support basic stuff like entities and we use xinclude and
> > xpointer so I can't even read the whole document
> 
> Again good point, that I've had problems with myself (Though I've not
> found an editor that actually handles this in a way that I'm happy with
> either)
> 
> This should probably be an option to link to or inline the sub document.
> Validation always seem to be a bit tricky with sub documents in most
> editors. You can validate the root doc and sub docs but if you just want
> to edit the sub doc you can't edit a sub doc and validate that with
> reference to the root doc.
> 
> > * validation is bad on complex documents
> 
> Validation is a very important/complex part of any xml editor and as yet
> conglomerate hasn't really been ready to tackle it.
> 
> > * tried installing but failed, need to install to many things just to get an
> > editor working
> 
> Don't think conglomerate is any worse than any other Gnome app, and if
> you're using yum/rpm it's pretty darn easy.
> 
> > 
> > I can't remember all the comments I have had, but people see the editor as
> > crippled and poorly designed with little functionality or support for basic
> > things. In this view they see it as a poor choice when you have alternatives
> > like XMLmind to use.
> 
> I think this is a little harsh. It's just early days for Conglomerate.
> It's nowhere near as stable as it needs to be and functionally it quite
> light but I think the design it good and we're moving the right
> direction albeit very slowly.

I think it's fair though.  I regularly have people ask me what app they
should be using to edit DocBook, and much as it pains me, I can't
recommend Conglomerate at this stage, basically due to instability asnd
slowness.

> 
> > 
> > Oh yes, one person remarked that the web site was unhelpful and that they saw
> > I had written the help, but that it was mostly empty. They ask if I will be
> > finishing the document. Puts me in a sticky situation and I have to explain
> > the essence of what I am about to tell you next. Just not is so many words
> > and not as forthright.
> > 
> > >From my own experience I can say that I agree with their feelings. In
> > addition, back when I planned documenting the editor. I found that, with the
> > exception of a few, that people were insensitive and unsupportive of new
> > people joining the project and voicing their ideas and problems. Often to the
> > point where the views of others where over showed by the religious focus of
> > certain members. Often very valid user input and points where totally
> > disregarded.  Responses to questions often seemed more like an effort to
> > prove a persons technical ability and knowledge that trying to help a person
> > understand or solve an issue. Contribution to the project became an argument
> > and there was no more fun left.
> 
> Can't say I've really noticed this but maybe I'm "insensitive" to the
> problem ;)

It can help to have a thick skin, alas.

> 
> I don't think we're any worse than any other project. Maybe we need to
> try harder. But from my own experience you tend to get back what you put
> in.

There are plenty of "differences in culture" between different open
source projects.  I want us to be what I'd call one of the "good ones".

> 
> If people approach the people working on a project in an open manner and
> make polite suggestions about how they can work through a problem/idea
> with them. Then they'll tend to get a very positive response. However if
> all that is posted is a set of demands with no offer of assistance in
> meeting them, then the response is bound to be a little more terse. 
> > conglomerate.rpm install failed
> > rpm output:
> > /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.26168: line 2: gconftool-2: command not found
> > error: %post(conglomerate-0.9.0-1.1.fc2.rf) scriptlet failed, exit status 127
> 
> Suppose conglomerate.rpm should have a dependency on GConf2. However
> GConf is a pretty core component (it's required by liggnome) so I'm
> actually surprised you can get gnome apps installed without it.
> > 
> > I did not bother continuing. Firstly I was scared to ask for help for fear of
> > being abused on the list because of my ignorance and second because I don't
> > need gconftool for anything else. My main desktop is KDE, I have installed
> > numerous GNOME apps and have yet to be required to install gconftool.
> > everything GNOME installed on my box, "just works" afer installation.
> > 
> > Please, I realize that my comments and input here may offend and anger
> >  certain people. I ask that you take my input and commnets as constructive
> >  input. I do not mean to be derogitory or demeaning to any person, I am just
> >  trying to give you a perspective of a person looking in to conglomerate as a
> >  project from the outside.
> 
> Please carry on the comments have valid, and if you stop talking to use
> we'll never get better.

Totally agree.