Finder 7.0 suggestion
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University
of aliases in the menu have to be in italics? It makes sense to italicise
the names of the actual file icons, but is this information relevant
in the menu?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro fone: +64-71-562-889
Computer Services Dept fax: +64-71-384-066
University of Waikato electric mail: l...@waikato.ac.nz
Hamilton, New Zealand 37^ 47' 29" S, 175^ 19' 16" E, GMT+12:00
Now that Intel has set its feet firmly on the 32-bit path, it remains
to persuade its customers to abandon its old mistakes and adopt some
new ones.
Philip Machanick
D'Oliveiro, Waikato University) writes:
> I like the "Apple menu folder" idea. Just one suggestion: do the names
> of aliases in the menu have to be in italics? It makes sense to italicise
> the names of the actual file icons, but is this information relevant
> in the menu?
I'd vote for keeping them italicized at all times. Symbolic links in
unix are great when they work, but (for example) if the file system
one points to is unmounted, it can cause errors that are hard to
track down. If you always _know_ something is an alias, you are
more likely to think of trying to track down this kind of problem.
Philip Machanick
phi...@pescadero.stanford.edu
Alexander M. Rosenberg
> of aliases in the menu have to be in italics? It makes sense to italicise
> the names of the actual file icons, but is this information relevant
> in the menu?
I brought this up, once upon a time. It turns out to be an issue of
consistancy. Now that I have thought about it a bit, I agree with it.
If you really dislike it, you could patch the menu definition to not
display italics in the Apple Menu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Alexander M. Rosenberg - INTERNET: al...@ucscb.ucsc.edu - Yoyodyne -
- 330 1/2 Waverley St. - UUCP:ucbvax!ucscc!ucscb!alexr - Propulsion -
- Palo Alto, CA 94301 - BITNET:alexr%uc...@ucscc.BITNET- Systems -
- (415) 329-8463 - Nobody is my employer so - :-) -
- - so nobody cares what I say. - -
Bob Daniel
dictionary. I have over 6 meg of disk space taken up because of various
spelling checkers. Any additional words I want to add has to be added to
each dictionary separately.
It would be nice if System7 had a Spelling Manager with a standard dictionary
and the ability to add specialized dictionaries (Engineering, Medical, etc.).
All appropriate spellcheck toolbox calls would be included for adding, deleting,
and checking strings, TE Handles ettc.
Wouldn't it be nice to have just one system wide dictionary? Thunder is all
I use now but it shouldn't be necessary for software vendors to provide
individual dictionaries.
gil...@m.cs.uiuc.edu
> It would be nice if System7 had a Spelling Manager with a standard
> dictionary and the ability to add specialized dictionaries
> (Engineering, Medical, etc.).
Better yet, system 7.0 needs a "word-stream" manager -- a program that
lets you pipe text through a processing program. Especially:
(1) spelling checkers.
(2) grammar checkers.
(3) machine translation programs.
The piping should be sufficiently general that it does the right thing
with tables, PICTs, and equations. I can't stand MS-Word, which tries
to spell-check variable name (x1, x2a2, ...) in my mathematical papers.
The program should also allow you to pipe a PICT through the manager.
Then we could
(1) spell-check pictures
(2) check for outrageous mistakes in pictures, such as
(a) two points that differ by some small epsilon
(the user would probably like to make them the same point)
(b) objects smaller than a certain size (garbage)
(c) invisible objects (completely obscured by others, or filled by nothing)
(d) lines at non-standard angles.
(e) etc. etc. etc. etc.
Brian Kenney
>It would be nice if System7 had a Spelling Manager with a standard dictionary
>and the ability to add specialized dictionaries (Engineering, Medical, etc.).
I don't think so. That sounds like creaping featurism, and would amount
to more delays in system software.
-bri
--
Brian Kenney ken...@hsi.com ...!uunet!hsi!kenney
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Television is a device that permits people who haven't anything to do
to watch people who can't do anything." Fred Allen
David Walton
There's really no need for something that specific: System 7.0's
InterApplication Communication model already provides a foundation for
doing this sort of thing. Process-to-process communication,
especially in the form of AppleEvents, is designed for sending
information and commands between programs to do exactly the type of
thing you're suggesting. Apple hasn't actually designed a stream
Manager with the functions that you describe, probably because they
wanted to leave something for the developers to do. I also suspect
that Apple System Software Engineers probably have better things to
worry about than standardizing a Spelling dictionary. In a previous
message, somebody mentioned Feature Creep, and I think it applies very
well.
I'm curious, too, about the possible features which you mentioned. Do
you really want software that second-guesses your intent to the extent
of weeding out objects smaller than an arbitrary size, or 'fixing'
your angles because they're improper? I'd sure want to have a backup
copy before I submitted my work to software like that...:-)
--
David Walton Internet: dw...@tank.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago { Any opinions found herein are mine, not }
Computing Organizations { those of my employers (or anybody else). }
TJA...@cc.utah.edu
> Wouldn't it be nice to have just one system wide dictionary? Thunder is all
> I use now but it shouldn't be necessary for software vendors to provide
> individual dictionaries.
Lets see, Claris has just one dictionary for all its applications....and...
Claris is now a wholely owned subsidary of Apple. Sounds like theres a solution
hideing there somewhere. :)
gil...@m.cs.uiuc.edu
> I'm curious, too, about the possible features which you mentioned. Do
> you really want software that second-guesses your intent to the extent
> of weeding out objects smaller than an arbitrary size, or 'fixing'
> your angles because they're improper? I'd sure want to have a backup
> copy before I submitted my work to software like that...:-)
The program would not be much different from "Align Objects" in most
draw programs, and UNDO would of course be enabled by the application
program. And it would be configurable, much like Align Objects is in
most programs.
In my opinion, many draw programs could benefit from more powerful
semantic checking of the pictures produced. I have sketched
approximately 200 pictures on the macintosh, mostly using MacDraw II
and Canvas, and I find that these programs need to provide much more
constraint-enforcement and result-checking in order to support
efficient sketching. Grid on/off just doesn't hack it, in my opinion.
Ray Johnson
>In article <5...@genco.uucp> rad@genco. (Bob Daniel) writes:
>>It would be nice if System7 had a Spelling Manager with a standard dictionary
>>and the ability to add specialized dictionaries (Engineering, Medical, etc.).
>
>>Wouldn't it be nice to have just one system wide dictionary?
>
> I don't think so. That sounds like creaping featurism, and would amount
>to more delays in system software.
You must admit, however, that having 3 or 4 spell checkers is a real pain.
I agree that it should not be a part of the system though. Software
developers should come up with a standard dictionary that can be accessed
by various spell checking 'engines'. Thats my thought about it anyway.
--
Ray Johnson
Internet: rjoh...@gwusun.gwu.edu Phone: (202)994-6853
The George Washington University
Glen Ditchfield
>In article <18...@hsi86.hsi.UUCP> ken...@hsi.com (Brian Kenney) writes:
>>In article <5...@genco.uucp> rad@genco. (Bob Daniel) writes:
>>>It would be nice if System7 had a Spelling Manager with a standard dictionary
>>>and the ability to add specialized dictionaries (Engineering, Medical, etc.).
>
>I agree that it should not be a part of the system though. Software
>developers should come up with a standard dictionary that can be accessed
>by various spell checking 'engines'.
I though System 7.0 is supposed to have an Inter-Application Communications
Dohickey (or something like that), so that applications can talk to each
other. I thought that meant that we will buy one spelling-checker
application, and when it starts up it will tell the system "Howdy! Ah'm a
spelling checker and hypenator. Anybody got any questions about that
stuff, you just send 'em right along to me, hear?"
Norman Graham
add specialized dictionaries.]
In article <18...@hsi86.hsi.UUCP> ken...@hsi.com (Brian Kenney) writes:
[Brian disagrees, citing creeping featurism and longer delays in the
delivery of System 7.0.]
From article <20...@sparko.gwu.edu>, by rjoh...@seas.gwu.edu (Ray Johnson):
[Ray argues for a standard dictionary format that various spelling engines
can access.]
Yes, using several dictionaries can be annoying, both in the amount of disk
space wasted and in the subtle differences between dictionaries. My personal
preference would be to ditch all my application supplied dictionaries and
have every application use Spelling Coach Professional as its native
spelling checker. But I suppose that's beside the point.
In System 7.0, Apple is providing a program-to-program communication (PPC)
mechanism called AppleEvents. In addition, Apple is defining a set of
standard AppleEvents that every application is expected to understand.
I believe it is in everyone's best interest for Apple to define a set
of standard AppleEvents that provide
1) spell checking services
2) hyphenation services
3) word definition services
4) synonym and antonym services
For example, assume we have our favorite spelling checker engine running
as a background process under MultiFinder. We ask our current application
(word processor, drawing program, or whatever) to verify the spelling of
a word. The current app then posts the Verify Spelling AppleEvent with
the questionable word in the message. Our spelling engine receives the
AppleEvent and, if the word is spelled correctly, sends an AppleEvent
back to the current app saying the word is OK; otherwise the spelling
engine posts an AppleEvent containing a list of suggested words.
You can imagine similar interchange with the other three categories of
AppleEvents listed above.
I suppose something like this will evolve without Apple's guidance; but
I imagine each dictionary vendor will define their own proprietary
set of AppleEvents and thus every application will have to support
multiple dictionary protocols in order to allow users to use their
favorite spelling/hyphenation/etc. engine. For this reason, I strongly
suggest Apple standardize these AppleEvents before System 7.0 is released.
Everything above is IMHO of course :-).
Norm
--
Norman Graham Oklahoma State University
Internet: nor...@a.cs.okstate.edu Computing and Information Sciences
BangPath: 219 Mathematical Sciences Building
{cbosgd,rutgers}!okstate!norman Stillwater, OK USA 74078-0599
Paul Snively
> In article <5...@genco.uucp> rad@genco. (Bob Daniel) writes:
> [Bob wants a Spelling Manager, a standard dictionary, and the ability to
> add specialized dictionaries.]
>
> In article <18...@hsi86.hsi.UUCP> ken...@hsi.com (Brian Kenney) writes:
> [Brian disagrees, citing creeping featurism and longer delays in the
> delivery of System 7.0.]
>
> From article <20...@sparko.gwu.edu>, by rjoh...@seas.gwu.edu (Ray
Johnson):
> [Ray argues for a standard dictionary format that various spelling
engines
> can access.]
>
> Yes, using several dictionaries can be annoying, both in the amount of
disk
> space wasted and in the subtle differences between dictionaries. My
personal
> preference would be to ditch all my application supplied dictionaries and
> have every application use Spelling Coach Professional as its native
> spelling checker. But I suppose that's beside the point.
It's not beside the point at all, given System 7.0 or later.
> In System 7.0, Apple is providing a program-to-program communication
(PPC)
> mechanism called AppleEvents. In addition, Apple is defining a set of
> standard AppleEvents that every application is expected to understand.
> I believe it is in everyone's best interest for Apple to define a set
> of standard AppleEvents that provide
> 1) spell checking services
> 2) hyphenation services
> 3) word definition services
> 4) synonym and antonym services
I agree that these should be defined, but I'll say more about how later.
> For example, assume we have our favorite spelling checker engine running
> as a background process under MultiFinder.
Or somewhere else on the network entirely...
> We ask our current application
> (word processor, drawing program, or whatever) to verify the spelling of
> a word. The current app then posts the Verify Spelling AppleEvent with
> the questionable word in the message. Our spelling engine receives the
> AppleEvent and, if the word is spelled correctly, sends an AppleEvent
> back to the current app saying the word is OK; otherwise the spelling
> engine posts an AppleEvent containing a list of suggested words.
Yup, that's essentially how it works.
> I suppose something like this will evolve without Apple's guidance; but
> I imagine each dictionary vendor will define their own proprietary
> set of AppleEvents and thus every application will have to support
> multiple dictionary protocols in order to allow users to use their
> favorite spelling/hyphenation/etc. engine. For this reason, I strongly
> suggest Apple standardize these AppleEvents before System 7.0 is
released.
Good news. AppleEvents will be registered with us in much the same
fashion as application creator signatures, and for much the same reason:
to avoid precisely the kinds of collisions that you foresee.
Apple won't be defining all of the AppleEvents, of course; that's simply
not possible. We will, however, do our best to ensure that AppleEvents
are created/supported in as organized and rational a fashion as possible.
__________________________________________________________________________
Paul Snively
Macintosh Developer Technical Support
Apple Computer, Inc.
Just because I work for Apple Computer, Inc. doesn't mean that I believe
what they believe, or vice-versa.
__________________________________________________________________________
Stewart Tansley
>
>>Wouldn't it be nice to have just one system wide dictionary?
>
> I don't think so. That sounds like creaping featurism, and would amount
>to more delays in system software.
Rubbish. :-) + :-|
Well, whilst I hate delays as much as anyone, there are some excellent
features that *should* be put into System 7 nonetheless, which are (apparently)
not being done. A standard dictionary architecture is one of them.
Why all the fuss though? A system-wide dictionary could then be assumed by
*all* applications (cf. Printers, Comms toolbox, etc.) - just think of the
implications & benefits...*and* it would be a key feature to beat the
MS-DOS/Windows boys with... :-)
(Ok, so maybe this is one of Apple's 'leave it to the 3rd party boys' things?
Also, note that Claris *has* a application-independent dictionary architecture
- for its own apps.)
===========================================================================
Stewart Tansley | STC Technology Ltd | 'Be cool, or be
+44 279 29531 x2763 | London Rd, Harlow, CM17 9NA, UK | cast out...'
ds...@stl.stc.co.uk | ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dswt | Subdivisions, Rush
===========================================================================
'You know how that rabbit feels - going under your spinning wheels...'
===========================================================================
Kent Borg
>> dictionary and the ability to add specialized dictionaries
>> (Engineering, Medical, etc.).
>
>Better yet, system 7.0 needs a "word-stream" manager -- a program that
>lets you pipe text through a processing program. Especially:
>
>(1) spelling checkers.
>(2) grammar checkers.
>(3) machine translation programs.
First, it is far too late to add anything this major to 7.0. 7.0 is
supposed to hit the streets in just a few months (though we shall
see).
Second, 7.0 already has features which might help along these lines.
Interapplication Communication through AppleEvents could make generic
spell checkers possible. The spell checker could drive the word
processor (scroll to such-and-such a word so the use can see the
context and so on), or the word processor could just submit a batch of
text, request faceless processing, and itself tell the user about it.
It will be interesting to see how the standard set of AppleEvents
turnout. If they are well done it might be easy for spell checkers to
offer all sorts of dictionary services.
--
Kent Borg internet: ke...@camex.com MacNet: kentborg
H:(617) 776-6899 W:(617) 426-3577
"If 2 + 3 is always going to be 5, why do they keep teaching it to us?"
- 5-30-90 New York Times quoting a first grader
Fisher Library support
>
>> It would be nice if System7 had a Spelling Manager with a standard
>> dictionary and the ability to add specialized dictionaries
>> (Engineering, Medical, etc.).
>
>Better yet, system 7.0 needs a "word-stream" manager -- a program that
>lets you pipe text through a processing program. Especially:
>
>(1) spelling checkers.
>(2) grammar checkers.
>(3) machine translation programs.
One thing that worries me is the size of the Mac system. It is already very
large ( I have one that does not fit onto a 800k floppy !), Imagine
how large it would be if a grammar checker was added !
Oh well, the price of Hard Disks are dropping ! ;-) (600Meg here we come ...)
================================================================================
^__^ | Christopher Albone
Catch Ya (- 0) |
Later !! | \/ | | e-mail : car...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au or
\ / | 883...@mango.cs.su.oz.au
====^^=== | "So this is it! We're all going to die !!!"
\/ | "Will you stop saying that !!!!" - Douglas Adams
===============================================================================