Nicolas Mailhot wrote: (replacing embedded or linked graphics by broken links)
>> I assume that the document >> should behave as before even with the broken links. > > I fear in many times the pagination would change IIRC the image size is stored in the content.xml of the file so we don't need the image to keep the layout. We do the same with OLE objects or plugins: if they can't be loaded for whatever reason they are replaced by an image (showing a plug) of the same size. So if in fact this doesn't work for graphics it could be a bug that until now nobody cared for because usually nobody wants to work with a document with broken links to graphics. Just now it comes to my mind that if my assumption is correct (and we can preserve the layout by using the correct image size for the replacement image) it is even easier to solve the problem: it would be enough to remove the embedded images from the zip file, OOo should now treat their references in the document as broken links. >> The problem is: what else needs to be exchanged, what is really >> necessary and what's just paranoia? >> >> So we need a complete list and we need to dicuss what needs to be on it. >> As an example, why do you mean that color and style names need to be >> replaced? > > because humans will choose descriptive names which may include company > name, and paranoïd users won't upload documents which may link them to a > particular employer (see the Sun foo colors in the default palette) Sounds reasonable. At least for styles it's easy. If you rename a style in the GUI the name will be changed in all places so it should be possible to do the same with a macro. >> > As most bugs happen on complex documents, most complex documents are >> > created in corp-space and corporations don't like disseminating internal >> > info for debugging purposes I suppose I'm far from the only one with >> > knowledge of bugs but no way to report them. >> >> Yes, I totally agree. We could get much more (and better) bug documents >> and of course that would be fine. So the problem brought up my Mario remains. I agree that having such a macro will not enable (or even convince) everybody to send documents each time something goes wrong with them. But at least it can help people willing to send docs (like you ;-)) though I still see a problem. A company that does not want their confidential documents to be sent out needs to make sure that the anonymizer works sufficiently, they won't take that for granted. So there still would be a hurdle but definitely a smaller one. Best regards, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead Please reply to the list only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spam sink. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
