I think the old BB just open a print dialog if emboss was selected. I think it just called the same functions as print. I've never tried it so I don't know if it works. On a side note, can we change "Emboss Now!" to simply "Emboss". I don't understand why it needs the word now and the exclamation point, On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Keith Creasy <kcreasy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > OH, I'm sorry. I guess I didn't look at that closely enough. > EmbossersManager is empty.**** > > *From:* brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: > brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Brandon Roller > *Sent:* Friday, July 12, 2013 3:23 PM > *To:* brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > *Subject:* [brailleblaster] Re: Next steps**** > > ** ** > > PrinersManager handles the print menu item**** > > ** ** > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Keith Creasy <kcreasy@xxxxxxx> wrote:**** > > Vic and John.**** > > **** > > Just to follow up on this. Unless I'm missing something it is simply a > matter of someone putting back one of the methods that was removed from > DocumentManager and reconnecting it to the menu option. This should be > pretty easy to get done fairly soon.**** > > **** > > Of course, I'm assuming that what was there actually worked.**** > > **** > > Also, John, there are a couple of classes that are not being used and are > in packages all by themselves, EmbosserManager and PrinterManager. Are we > going to use these?**** > > **** > > Thanks.**** > > **** > > Keith Creasy**** > > Software Developer**** > > American Printing House for the Blind**** > > KCreasy@xxxxxxx**** > > Phone: 502.895.2405**** > > Skype: keith537**** > > **** > > *From:* brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: > brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Vic Beckley > *Sent:* Friday, July 12, 2013 2:20 PM > *To:* brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > *Subject:* [brailleblaster] Re: Next steps**** > > **** > > Keith,**** > > **** > > The last time I tried embossing from within BB, it didn’t work. Is that > working now?**** > > **** > > **** > > Best regards from Ohio,**** > > **** > > Vic**** > > **** > > *From:* brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [ > mailto:brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<brailleblaster-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] > *On Behalf Of *Keith Creasy > *Sent:* Friday, July 12, 2013 1:58 PM > *To:* brailleblaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > *Subject:* [brailleblaster] Next steps**** > > **** > > All.**** > > **** > > I am anxious to hear what others think but let me share what I believe our > next big step in development should be. Right now it is easy to open an XML > file and one can even edit the content in the text view. Some important > things that one can't do yet are:**** > > **** > > 1. Start a new document and immediately begin adding content. You can > actually enter text into the text view now but it isn't being added in a > valid way to the XML and you do not get any braille. We need to finish out > the code that creates a new document and adds at least one text element > where a user can enter new text, get braille, and save it back to a valid > UTD XML document.**** > > **** > > **** > > 2. One cannot yet add braille to an existing document. One of the first > things we are going to encounter, and we'll soon know if I'm right, is that > users are going to want to add braille-specific information to the > document. Transcriber's notes, acknowledgements, braille publication info, > and such. **** > > **** > > 3. Related to the previous point, users are going to want to make > corrections to the braille without effecting the print and even make > corrections that can't be made in the print.**** > > **** > > 4. Table of Contents needs to be implemented. For the sake of simplicity > and to speed this up I'd like to propose that we use the current > LibLouisUTDML way of generating a braille TOC. Users would just move to the > place in the document, perhaps in the tree view, and select that as the > location of the TOC. A locked braille element would then be added with the > braille TOC generated using the headings. I don't think this is going to be > 100% reliable in the long term but it might work better than I expect and > there's no reason to make it more complicated until we know.**** > > **** > > **** > > Regards,**** > > Keith**** > > **** > > ** ** >