On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie> wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 11:36:33 -0500 > Drew Jensen <drewjensen.in...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> First to what Rory was saying on PDF editing, I tend to agree and >> personally don't see it as a must have feature for any suite - that said, >> again for myself I'd point out that with ODF-extended file format they can >> create a PDF/ODF hybrid (whether you think that is a good idea or not..;) >> but it is the case anyway) and I think worth a mention. > > It ought be emphasised that this only allows limited (cosmetic type) editing. >
OK. See if the revised answer is good. >> >> To Ariel's point - I think it's valid (though I disagree that AOO on MS >> Windows wouldn't know about it) IMO the best situation is to not address >> LibO at all - I would directly tell folks asking about it to ask at the >> proper location and that is LibO. I will say the same about LibO resources. >> Myself I wish that were not the best way, but I think it is. That said, I >> also hope that AOO and LibO developers end up having a beer together at >> FOSDEM and exchanging ideas on the code in sessions.. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile >> <arie...@apache.org>wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:46:41AM -0500, Rob Weir wrote: >> > > >> > https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=your_top_questions_answered >> > > >> > > In addition to review, note that I need help developing a response to >> > > questions 7, 8 and 10. >> > > >> > > 7. "Open Office doesn't handle tables in Word well - for example >> > > re-sizing of columns, keeping table rows together, inserting page >> > > breaks within tables. Could OO development include a goal of fully >> > > matching MS Office functionality for tables?" >> > > >> > > >> > > 8. "When is OpenOffice going to get a visual refresh and be built with >> > > each OSes native widgets?" >> > > >> > > >> > > 10. "Why is the "User Profile" causing so much trouble in migration >> > > from older versions to 3.4.1?" >> > >> > I counted 11 mentions to "LibreOffice". Do we really want to give them >> > such kind of promotion? >> > >> > Simply recall that most of OpenOffice's user base (Windows users), know >> > nothing about LO; I understand their need to build their brand, but >> > using Apache resource to do so doesn't sound fine IMHO. >> > >> > I know this tries to answers the top asked questions, among those are LO >> > related questions, but how representative are these questions when most >> > of our user base does not even know what LO is? These questions could >> > really be genuine AOO users questions, or simply a way some LO followers >> > have chosen to promote their brand using OpenOffice brand and >> > resources. > > It might be worth reducing the number of specific references to LibO to the > bare minimum, and gereralising to stress that AOO code can be and is used by > a number of other customised Office suites; we don't have to list them. A > general statement of Apache OpenOffice willingness to co-operate should > suffice, without casting blame in any direction. > Is there anything in the current text that suggests blame? -Rob > -- > Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie>
