https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167291

--- Comment #6 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> ---
Heiko, the title and the opening comment, especially the first paragraph, do
not make it clear enough what this bug is supposed to be about. Nor whether
this is supposed to be a meta-bug or a concrete bug. If this is a meta-bug at
least in part, there are already a bunch of existing issues which should block
it.

I'll also make two other comments:

About "editing PDFs"
--------------------

 - I talked about this in LibOCon Bucharest 2023:

https://events.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice-conference-2023/talk/JDSEVU/
Slides:
https://events.documentfoundation.org/media/libreoffice-conference-2023/submissions/JDSEVU/resources/LO_as_PDF_editor_sbZDN5T.pdf
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98yX0JRHFbQ

in a nutshell, LibreOffice is what many people use, or try to use, to "edit
PDFs", regardless of whether we want to call it a PDF editor, so the better we
support editing PDFs, the more we will help users achieve their goals and the
more we would be appreciated as an app. And vice versa.

Two different kinds of PDF editing
----------------------------------

This bug is focused on a PDF as the baseline form of a document, with opening
and saving expected to retain as much of its structure as-is, and make sure to
use its built-in facilities/allowances for various kinds of contents.

But - a second kind of PDF editing is when the PDF is thought of as a result of
an export from a less-final, more human-editing-oriented format like ODF or
OOXML. In those cases, the user has a _conflicting_ expectation, which is the
reconstruction of as much as possible of what can be inferred to be the
original document's structure and features which are not directly available in
PDFs.

Both are valid user interests; but they are conflicting in terms of how an
import filter, and perhaps even an export filter, should behave in order to
adhere to each of them.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

Reply via email to