Kohei,
Kohei Yoshida <kyosh...@novell.com> wrote on 04/07/2009 11:35:37 AM: > > The encryption work is already done. The CWS is blocking for the other > feature, the sheet protection options, mostly on the ODF TC file format > change approval. Once the file change is approved the missing piece of > ODF load/save can be implemented quite easily for that sheet protection > options feature. > > Here is the proposal: > http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Spreadsheet_Table_Protection_Options > > (Actually any help pushing my proposal on the ODF TC would be great, > since you guys are pretty active on the TC...) I take a look at the proposal again. The proposal mainly includes 2 parts of contents: (1)add table protection options;(2)add double-hash algorithm. The proposal makes sense for me although I still need to think about the implementation details. Of course, let us discuss the proposal on the TC list, not appropriate here:)> > > > Do you > > need our support and cooperation? -:) > > Thanks for your offer, but since the core encryption work is 99% > complete I don't think I need any more help on the core part of the > implementation. > > Having said that, we are still lacking some UI fine-tuning since the UI > for security, which includes file encryption, has undergone major change > recently in the framework project. So, some work has to be done to hook > the xls encryption bits to that new framework, which I haven't done yet. > So, help in that area would be great. I've been talking with Mikhail > Voitenko and Mathias Bauer about the new security framework on the > framework list. I do not know the framework change at all before now. I need to first subscribe the framework list and take a look at what happened. Moreover, besides Excel file encryption, Symphony also implements Word file encryption, the 2 components should have common part at the framework layer. If Excel file encryption modified the framework layer(I think so),the Word file encryption should reuse the same modification. So my colleague, Steve Yin (in the cc list) and I will investigate how the framework layer change impacts the sc/sw file encryption. BTW, before we discuss issues on framework list, a question first, the framework change you said has already been put into latest dev repository, or still at some CWS? so that we can easily get the change code to take a look. thanks. > > In terms of timeline, 3.2 integration is realistic. Actually, I already > tried to integrate the CWS for 3.1 (without the UI bits, that is), but > couldn't because of new strings that it introduces (and it was after the > translation deadline). So, 3.2 probably, unless we hit some unexpected > roadblocks. Good, looking forward to seeing your deliverables in 3.2! > > So, that's the gist of it. > > Best, > > Kohei > > > > thanks. > >
