Re: [tdf-discuss] TDF Certification
On 24/06/2011, Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com wrote: Le 2011-06-24 14:34, Manfred A. Reiter a écrit : Hi Uwe, Ich bin z.Zt. in Urlaub, melde mich danach. ;-) ... Sollten uns dann persönlich sehen. LG ## Manfred - (android) mobil - please excuse typos Am 24.06.2011 15:40 schrieb Uwe Altmanno...@altsys.de: Translated: Manfred is letting us know that he is on vacation. :-) Hi Manfred: Hope you have a relaxing time and we look forward to hearing from you soon. :-) Cheers Marc -- Marc Paré http://www.parEntreprise.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: 4. It is incorrect to presume that Font Embedding will not be in ODF 1.3 or any other. While font embedding did not make the feature cut in the prioritization for ODF 1.2, that does not mean it can't be resurrected. It is early days for ODF 1.3, which is scheduled to take a two-year development process. What is *missing* is a serious proposal that deals with the complexities, borrows from some already-worked-out approach in other software, and is brought forth at the ODF TC in an unencumbered form. Someone has to do the heavy lifting. You can also respond to the public review, although something concrete that can be used in a constructive manner would be particularly welcome. The ODF TC *has* to address every Public Review comment, although that doesn't mean we will do anything about it. Good catches will probably be saved up for an Errata or lead to action in ODF 1.3. Le 2011-06-24 13:13, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit : So, let me state and restate this : ODF will not embed fonts in the 1.2, 1.3, nor in the future, because the format is not meant to focus on faithful layout rendering. Instead, PDF is meant that. ODF focuses on office document exchanges. Best, Charles. Even if font embedding is included in ODF 1.3 (which is unlikely according to Charles' statement) that will only happen in 2 years time. I think TDF and LO are betting on the wrong horse. It's not only going to start the race much later but also there seems to be no guarantee that it will run faster or better (if Charles' statement is correct they aren't even on the same race because their goals are different) In any case, if LibreOffice's goal is to be a suite that stands behind the ODF format then it should review what it promises. If it can't embed fonts, it can never be a replacement for MS Office. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Font-Embedding-in-ODF-was-RE-ANN-ODF-1-2-Candidate-OASIS-Standard-Enters-60-Day-Public-Review-tp3106577p3107356.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)
On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 01:25:47 -0700 (PDT) plino pedl...@gmail.com wrote: In any case, if LibreOffice's goal is to be a suite that stands behind the ODF format then it should review what it promises. If it can't embed fonts, it can never be a replacement for MS Office. Does MS Office embed fonts? Manfred -- Manfred Usselmann usselman...@icg-online.de -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)
У суб, 25. 06 2011. у 12:34 +0200, Manfred Usselmann пише: Does MS Office embed fonts? It is a rarely used option, disabled by default. To use it not breaking copyright law, you need to have a properly licensed font. If you are using non-free font, usually you are not allowed to redistribute it in your document. PDF does not embed complete font, just the forms used in the document. With editable documents, you need to have complete font. Kind regards, Goran Rakic -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)
Le Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:34:29 +0200, Manfred Usselmann usselman...@icg-online.de a écrit : On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 01:25:47 -0700 (PDT) plino pedl...@gmail.com wrote: In any case, if LibreOffice's goal is to be a suite that stands behind the ODF format then it should review what it promises. If it can't embed fonts, it can never be a replacement for MS Office. Does MS Office embed fonts? Manfred No it doesn't. But I think we're also missing the point if -let's say we were to design a brand new office file format that embeds or does not embed fonts- why should anyone be using it? Choosing a format that's not the dominant format is already a reasoned choice, oftentimes an act of departure from the dominant player, and sometimes a political act. Embedding fonts will not magically solve the MSFT formats dominance in the field of office suite. The challenger here is ODF, which has a rather wide support that extends much beyond LibreOffice. We certainly can improve ODF and are encouraged to do so; but I would like to point out that document formats follow (strange?)specific rules and patterns that usually do not rely on any specific feature that would decide its dominance. The most famous pattern here is the network effect, essentially meaning that the more a format gets used, well... the more it gets used :) In order to change its dominance you need to be breaking its network of users and you can't do it because you have something better (okay, you should have something better, but it usually does not rely on the format if it's meant to serve the same purposes) but because users or the ones mandating such uses have taken the decision to stop using the dominant format. Hence the value of standardization that helps enable a level playing field for the competition but also acts as a value proposition that has in itself the merit of breaking the habit of using the format of the dominant player. Best, Charles. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:06:17 -0400 Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com wrote: Charles H. Schultz has informed us that the OASIS group has no intention of embedding fonts for v.1.2, 1.3 or any future versions, so getting the same type of fidelity from a LibreOffice Reader will not be possible. In this case, if one were to wish to print from the LibO Reader, if the font used in the document is absent from the system, then the system would look for the closest approximate font to the original font. That's one of the reasons why I prefer to distribute the final version of a document as PDF, which is pretty well supported by LibreOffice. So, getting the same quality of print from a LibreOffice Reader would not be possible without having the font embedded in the file. I still think that a LibreOffice Reader would be useful for those who do not have the LibreOffice suite installed on their machine. In this case they would most likely have another office suite or text processing program installed. Since we are using a standard file format, they should be able to use our document with their software. Isn't that one of the advantages of a standard document format? Being independent from the specific text program and it's vendor? This would give the user the choice of using the reader to view the file without the need of the full-blown suite and without having the need to use the Acrobat Reader. As mentioned there is no need to use Acrobat Reader, there are other more lightweight readers available. I still believe that PDF is the best solution to distribute final versions of text (and mybe other office) documents. For testing purposes I've just installed Okular under Windows and it was really easy (See http://windows.kde.org/). Again, our user base and the fact that our reader would be created in-house would be enough to give the LibreOffice Reader enough impetuous for adoption by our users and non-users of the suite. Not sure that our users really need an additional reader version of LibreOffice since that have already the complete suite installed. There is one use-case I could think of though: If the reader would be leightweight and easy to install and would be able to run open document presentations, it might be handy to use for presentations at different locations or to pass along with the impress file. I think supplying a LibreOffice Reader is just as important as providing the plugins needed for viewing files in a browser (LibreOffice Tools-Internet-Browser plug-in). Providing tools to popularize our distro is important. Manfred -- Manfred Usselmann usselman...@icg-online.de ICG IT Consulting GmbH, Kelkheim -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review, prerequisite for balloting as OASIS Standard
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:21:34 +0200 Goran Rakic gra...@devbase.net wrote: У пет, 24. 06 2011. у 14:03 -0500, Robert Derman пише: As long as ODF has this inherent limitation it WILL NEVER SUCCEED as a universal document exchange format!!! Different formats exists with different goals. But there is this great thing called hybrid PDF document - it is a PDF with ODF embedded. Interesting, didn't know about this! I was just going to propose something similiar: ODF documents with embedded PDF files for read-only and exact output purposes. You can view it in any PDF reader pixel-perfect, or open it as editable to create new works. So I do not need to have two versions of the document on my harddrive (odt and pdf) any longer. But I assume it is not possible to open that file with other ODF compatible programs, or is it possible to extract the odf document somehow? It is not just about fonts, you have page page size and margins, page breaks, dynamic text, binary objects... But most of this should already be part of the ODF document? If I am not mistaken, ODF does not specify how the output should exactly look, but more how it should feel. You can have a compliant ODF viewer targeting small screens, just like with HTML. Manfred -- Manfred Usselmann usselman...@icg-online.de -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss]
http://snappdapp.diamondstorepharmacy.net/?camp=rubern -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader
Manfred wrote: I still believe that PDF is the best solution to distribute final versions of text (and maybe other office) documents. I'd say yes if they are likely to be printed on paper, no if it is only likely to be read from a screen. Snag is desktop office software originates from a time when all documents were printed to paper, this is no longer the case. Why waste time replicating stuff that is already well-supported and not going anywhere? Better to at least make some steps towards the future which is HTML 5 and browsers rather than systems driven operating systems. Short term popularity raising is not going to protect against longer term obsolescence. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader
On 25 June 2011 10:02, timofonic timofonic timofo...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Nuno J. Silva nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt wrote: On 2011-06-24, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Marc Paré wrote: if we were to promote a quick and dirty LibreOffice Reader, very much like the Adobe Acrobat Reader, whose sole purpose is to provide the ability to read .odt files, there would be no need to carry .pdf formatted files. Heh. :-) Don't use Adobe Reader as an example of a reader, use instead some other PDF reader with a reasonable memory and disk space footprint. (Unless that's what you meant by quick and dirty.) This, however, won't work. Document fidelity is not the aim of ODT files, while it is the aim of PDF files (example: font embedding, but one could find many more). Replacing PDF by ODT is just not feasible due to the formats themselves, not to the lack of an ODF Reader. Font embedding is an issue, it could render the viewer useless. It's possible, at least, to make some room for compatible documents, by shipping a set of fonts with the viewer and announcing that as the standard fonts for ODF viewer. Unless there's some required feature of ODT that's not possible to reproduce in PDF, I suggest keeping with PDF for now: it is designed for portability and it's vectorial, so there's no loss. Someone suggested djvu (DeJaVU). I like djvu, I use it and I and spread the word about it, but IMHO it's main use is for scanned documents (making it so entire books can fit in a floppy!). Even if a pdf is larger than a djvu for the same document, if it was directly exported to pdf, it's vectorial. Converting to djvu makes it raster. IMHO that's a bad idea. YMMV. Are you sure about that? If yes, maybe there should be a Version 28 with those improvements and more. Maybe DjVu format could get more succesful if TDF adopts it and promotes it as OASIS OpenDocument format (ODR?). It's the missing leg for the OpenDocument file format collection, I think. -- Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) gopher://sdf-eu.org/1/users/njsg -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted What is the purpose of pdf? It's for putting documents on paper. If you simply want to read a document on screen use a browser. There was a project to develop a Firefox plugin through the OpenDocument Fellowship but I think it has stalled. I would rather encourage people to read screen based stuff with a browser instead of having to download pdfs when the information is rarely ever printed. If it needs to be LibO will produce a pdf to do it. Seems to me that a browser plugin is a lot simpler task and a lot more useful. Get Google to sponsor it for Chrome. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss]
Can we ban this guy On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Marius Popa marius.mar...@gmail.comwrote: http://snappdapp.diamondstorepharmacy.net/?camp=rubern -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Sean White, I've Seen the Cow Level -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader
On 25 June 2011 13:37, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 25 Jun 2011, at 08:33, Ian Lynch wrote: Manfred wrote: I still believe that PDF is the best solution to distribute final versions of text (and maybe other office) documents. I'd say yes if they are likely to be printed on paper, no if it is only likely to be read from a screen. I disagree. Once a document no longer needs editing (and this is a frequent need in daily life - think purchase receipt, invoice, insurance schedule and so on) it needs to be provided in an electronic format that cannot be easily altered. PDF plays this role, ODF doesn't. In most cases those documents that you give as examples would be covered by likely to be printed on paper. That was my point, we already have pdfs for this. pdf is less than optimal for storing documents that are only viewed on screens. ODF files can be encrypted and passworded in cases where security is required so it is easy to make it difficult to alter, it's just relatively rare to need to. The world is moving to the web and desktop applications are going to have to as well. All I'm saying is why waste time on readers when getting LibO to the web is far more important. If you are going to do some sort of reader make it something relevant to where things are going not to where they have been or where need is already satisfied. It's a different issue, but I think the reliance on pdfs as not easily editable is dubious. There are plenty of pdf editors so if anyone really wants to edit a receipt or invoice stored in that way they can. If they are prepared to do unlawful things it's very unlikely that having to buy a pdf editor is going to be much of a deterrent. That is a whole area of difficulty that the paper reliant world has not come to terms with. We have it with certificates. Paper based or pdf certificates are a major cause of certification fraud because they are very easy to forge. The best way to record such evidence is in a secure database that is quick and easy to authenticate against. I can see a time when paper based documents are in a small minority and important information will be in encrypted databases where making it secure is much easier. Question is where does LibO fit into that world? S. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Nuno J. Silva nunojsi...@ist.utl.ptwrote: On 2011-06-24, Robert Derman wrote: Varun Mittal wrote: I personally feel we have more important set of priorities than diversifying right now into PDF reader. Also no point inventing the wheel again when there are several open source pdf readers available which we can integrate instead of developing one of our own. I am wondering do any of the open source pdf readers mentioned above work with Windows or are they all Linux, I mostly use Windows. What I meant by HUGE when I referred to Adobe Reader was the more than 6 Gigs of hard drive space it takes up! By contrast all of the LibreOffice suite of programs takes up 475 Megs of space. That means that a mere reader takes up more than a dozen times the space of an entire office suite. If that isn't mega-bloat I don't know what is. It has been a long time, but I seem to remember Adobe Reader only taking 12 Megs of space at one time. It used to come included on almost all driver disks, now it is just too big for that. Adobe Reader is the only bloated PDF reader I've seen so far, when it comes to runtime. Heavy, slow to launch. I know Evince runs in Windows, just see its download page I will suggest you to investigate poppler rather than evince. Most floss pdf viewers really are based of propper which is the native renderer for this. Both Evince and Okular for example uses this. http://poppler.freedesktop.org/ http://live.gnome.org/Evince/Downloads Or a direct link to the current version: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/binaries/win32/evince/2.32/evince-2.32.0-144.1.msi Evince 2.30.3 in a Windows VM I have around takes 70.3 MiB of disk space. Now I guess part of that are the dependencies, libraries that are frequently around in GNU/Linux but must be supplied in windows. OTOH it's way lighter than Adobe Reader, and it supports more than just PDF (it also supports PostScript, DeJaVU and LaTeX DeVice Independent; it's able to handle comics packed in some compression formats (cbr, cbz and others)). Coming back on-topic, there was once some talk about adding [to Evince] support for viewing editable documents. The following reply by a member of the Evince team, who says why he thinks it shouldn't be done, sounds interesting in the context of this thread (the one I'm replying to): http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2005-April/msg00159.html There are also some comments on their wiki webpage (see the last section, /Possible or Planned to Support/): http://live.gnome.org/Evince/SupportedDocumentFormats My 2 cents ! My 2 cents, too. So total = 4 ;-) -- Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) gopher://sdf-eu.org/1/users/njsg -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)
Charles-H. Schulz wrote: No it doesn't. Of course it does. Maybe you don't use it or don't know how to do it. But don't say it doesn't. Charles-H. Schulz wrote: But I think we're also missing the point if -let's say we were to design a brand new office file format that embeds or does not embed fonts- why should anyone be using it? Choosing a format that's not the dominant format is already a reasoned choice, oftentimes an act of departure from the dominant player, and sometimes a political act. I think you are missing the point: it's not simply a matter of the embedded fonts. If the brand new file format that you are creating wants to attract users it can never have less features than the one it wants to replace. Or at least it can not miss critical features. Even if people want to switch for political reasons, I'm sure they don't want their work crippled... -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Font-Embedding-in-ODF-was-RE-ANN-ODF-1-2-Candidate-OASIS-Standard-Enters-60-Day-Public-Review-tp3106577p3107831.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)
Le Sat, 25 Jun 2011 08:01:26 -0700 (PDT), plino pedl...@gmail.com a écrit : Charles-H. Schulz wrote: No it doesn't. Of course it does. Maybe you don't use it or don't know how to do it. But don't say it doesn't. So are you saying your word documents embed fonts on a daily basis? I've never seen any similar documents. You get the impression of that -maybe- because on a windows to windows environment everybody uses fonts that are already available on the system. Of course, ODF (and others) do keep the reference of the font name and if I have the same font on my system it will try to reuse the same font. But just for reference: except for specific cases: office document formats including MSOffice DON'T include fonts. PDF does (there are less used formats) and that's what it's know for. Charles-H. Schulz wrote: But I think we're also missing the point if -let's say we were to design a brand new office file format that embeds or does not embed fonts- why should anyone be using it? Choosing a format that's not the dominant format is already a reasoned choice, oftentimes an act of departure from the dominant player, and sometimes a political act. I think you are missing the point: it's not simply a matter of the embedded fonts. If the brand new file format that you are creating wants to attract users it can never have less features than the one it wants to replace. Or at least it can not miss critical features. Network effect. Do you have any idea how many superior formats have been created but that never got adopted? Even if people want to switch for political reasons, I'm sure they don't want their work crippled... They don't, that's true. But don't mix the various purposes of formats. Best, Charles. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)
The reason for the periodic Committee Drafts is to have reasonably-stable feature specifications that implementers can start on and confirm the specification of before we do the work to produce the final stable specification (a Committee Specification) that then goes forward as a Candidate OASIS Standard and then OASIS Standard. I think this conversation needs to be made more concrete. The inclusion of font embedding into the ODF 1.x specification is not the issue. The issue is, who has it be such an imperative that they are willing to have and document an implementation-specific solution well enough that others can interoperate with it. Then, or concurrently, it can be rolled into the ODF specification work as the basis for an independently-implementable, interoperable feature of ODF. The ODF TC does not implement anything. And it is a waste of the volunteer efforts of the ODF TC participants to specify features that no one implements or that are not practically implementable or for which there are already good-enough solutions that can be adapted. There's a hand-and-glove partnership required for a feature as substantial as font embedding. So far, I have not heard any offers. - Dennis PS: Since August 2008, when I became a member of the ODF TC, I don't recall any conclusion that font embedding is out of scope for the OpenDocument Format. I don't know what such an assertion might be based on. It is definitely the case that the ODF specification does not specify the rendering and presentation of documents. But that doesn't exclude font embedding. After all, there are already significant provisions for fonts in ODF, they just don't encompass embedding font files. -Original Message- From: plino [mailto:pedl...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 01:26 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review) Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: 4. It is incorrect to presume that Font Embedding will not be in ODF 1.3 or any other. While font embedding did not make the feature cut in the prioritization for ODF 1.2, that does not mean it can't be resurrected. It is early days for ODF 1.3, which is scheduled to take a two-year development process. What is *missing* is a serious proposal that deals with the complexities, borrows from some already-worked-out approach in other software, and is brought forth at the ODF TC in an unencumbered form. Someone has to do the heavy lifting. You can also respond to the public review, although something concrete that can be used in a constructive manner would be particularly welcome. The ODF TC *has* to address every Public Review comment, although that doesn't mean we will do anything about it. Good catches will probably be saved up for an Errata or lead to action in ODF 1.3. Le 2011-06-24 13:13, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit : So, let me state and restate this : ODF will not embed fonts in the 1.2, 1.3, nor in the future, because the format is not meant to focus on faithful layout rendering. Instead, PDF is meant that. ODF focuses on office document exchanges. Best, Charles. Even if font embedding is included in ODF 1.3 (which is unlikely according to Charles' statement) that will only happen in 2 years time. I think TDF and LO are betting on the wrong horse. It's not only going to start the race much later but also there seems to be no guarantee that it will run faster or better (if Charles' statement is correct they aren't even on the same race because their goals are different) In any case, if LibreOffice's goal is to be a suite that stands behind the ODF format then it should review what it promises. If it can't embed fonts, it can never be a replacement for MS Office. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Font-Embedding-in-ODF-was-RE-ANN-ODF-1-2-Candidate-OASIS-Standard-Enters-60-Day-Public-Review-tp3106577p3107356.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)
Hi Dennis Le 2011-06-25 12:40, Dennis E. Hamilton a écrit : The reason for the periodic Committee Drafts is to have reasonably-stable feature specifications that implementers can start on and confirm the specification of before we do the work to produce the final stable specification (a Committee Specification) that then goes forward as a Candidate OASIS Standard and then OASIS Standard. I think this conversation needs to be made more concrete. The inclusion of font embedding into the ODF 1.x specification is not the issue. The issue is, who has it be such an imperative that they are willing to have and document an implementation-specific solution well enough that others can interoperate with it. Then, or concurrently, it can be rolled into the ODF specification work as the basis for an independently-implementable, interoperable feature of ODF. The ODF TC does not implement anything. And it is a waste of the volunteer efforts of the ODF TC participants to specify features that no one implements or that are not practically implementable or for which there are already good-enough solutions that can be adapted. There's a hand-and-glove partnership required for a feature as substantial as font embedding. So far, I have not heard any offers. - Dennis PS: Since August 2008, when I became a member of the ODF TC, I don't recall any conclusion that font embedding is out of scope for the OpenDocument Format. I don't know what such an assertion might be based on. It is definitely the case that the ODF specification does not specify the rendering and presentation of documents. But that doesn't exclude font embedding. After all, there are already significant provisions for fonts in ODF, they just don't encompass embedding font files. Thanks for the information. This all sounds promising to me. So essentially, what you are saying is if ... hypothetically ... a proposal were to be put forward for embedding fonts and a group such as LibreOffice showed a committed willingness to use this new option with ... let's say ... a LibreOffice Reader and if other groups were to support this new option, then it may pass? -Original Message- From: plino [mailto:pedl...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 01:26 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review) Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: 4. It is incorrect to presume that Font Embedding will not be in ODF 1.3 or any other. While font embedding did not make the feature cut in the prioritization for ODF 1.2, that does not mean it can't be resurrected. It is early days for ODF 1.3, which is scheduled to take a two-year development process. What is *missing* is a serious proposal that deals with the complexities, borrows from some already-worked-out approach in other software, and is brought forth at the ODF TC in an unencumbered form. Someone has to do the heavy lifting. You can also respond to the public review, although something concrete that can be used in a constructive manner would be particularly welcome. The ODF TC *has* to address every Public Review comment, although that doesn't mean we will do anything about it. Good catches will probably be saved up for an Errata or lead to action in ODF 1.3. Le 2011-06-24 13:13, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit : So, let me state and restate this : ODF will not embed fonts in the 1.2, 1.3, nor in the future, because the format is not meant to focus on faithful layout rendering. Instead, PDF is meant that. ODF focuses on office document exchanges. Best, Charles. Even if font embedding is included in ODF 1.3 (which is unlikely according to Charles' statement) that will only happen in 2 years time. I think TDF and LO are betting on the wrong horse. It's not only going to start the race much later but also there seems to be no guarantee that it will run faster or better (if Charles' statement is correct they aren't even on the same race because their goals are different) In any case, if LibreOffice's goal is to be a suite that stands behind the ODF format then it should review what it promises. If it can't embed fonts, it can never be a replacement for MS Office. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Font-Embedding-in-ODF-was-RE-ANN-ODF-1-2-Candidate-OASIS-Standard-Enters-60-Day-Public-Review-tp3106577p3107356.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. Actually, 2 years is not that long and the world of office suites is a slow one. We will still be using desktop office suites in two year's time. Just imagine, many of our LibreOffice members are still on limited internet connection along with dial-up connection. Cheers Marc -- Marc Paré http://www.parEntreprise.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more:
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF
On 2011-06-25, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Le 2011-06-24 13:13, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit : So, let me state and restate this : ODF will not embed fonts in the 1.2, 1.3, nor in the future, because the format is not meant to focus on faithful layout rendering. Instead, PDF is meant that. ODF focuses on office document exchanges. 4. It is incorrect to presume that Font Embedding will not be in ODF 1.3 or any other. While font embedding did not make the feature cut in the prioritization for ODF 1.2, that does not mean it can't be resurrected. It is early days for ODF 1.3, which is scheduled to take a two-year development process. What is *missing* is a serious proposal that deals with the complexities, borrows from some already-worked-out approach in other software, and is brought forth at the ODF TC in an unencumbered form. Someone has to do the heavy lifting. [...] I think this conversation needs to be made more concrete. The inclusion of font embedding into the ODF 1.x specification is not the issue. The issue is, who has it be such an imperative that they are willing to have and document an implementation-specific solution well enough that others can interoperate with it. Then, or concurrently, it can be rolled into the ODF specification work as the basis for an independently-implementable, interoperable feature of ODF. The problem is that the research I've been doing about this subject has been leading me to the position that LibO/OOo is not going to implement it because it must be implemented in ODF, and because ODF won't support that. So, after reading your messages, there are two issues: 1. There's a misunderstanding of the position held by the ODF TC (or maybe it was some decision taken long ago of which you don't know?), and 2. this sounds like a chicken and egg problem, LibO/OOo will only implement embedding if it gets in ODF, and it will only get in ODF if there's a working implementation. I've always held the opinion the chicken must have come first, because egg is shorthand for [chicken] egg. But I doubt this helps here. The ODF TC does not implement anything. And it is a waste of the volunteer efforts of the ODF TC participants to specify features that no one implements or that are not practically implementable or for which there are already good-enough solutions that can be adapted. There's a hand-and-glove partnership required for a feature as substantial as font embedding. Makes sense. [...] It is definitely the case that the ODF specification does not specify the rendering and presentation of documents. But that doesn't exclude font embedding. After all, there are already significant provisions for fonts in ODF, they just don't encompass embedding font files. I see font embedding as a way to make interoperation easier, and not to achieve faithful representation. I think a major goal is to have ODF being used on several platforms, and available fonts differ from platform to platform. OTOH I guess LibO can (and probably already does?) bundle some fonts with it, so that the default fonts are available on every install of LibO (but this still excludes other ODF-compatible applications). -- Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) gopher://sdf-eu.org/1/users/njsg -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: My Windows 7 C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Reader 10.0\ folder is 181 MB. Where do you get the 6 GB? I simply right clicked on the folder that contains adobe reader 9 and nothing else, the rest of the Adobe products are in a folder one level up that also contains the reader folder, in any case when I click properties, that is the size it lists, in fact to be more exact 6.2 gigabytes. I did the same with the folder containing LibreOffice, and it listed the size of that as 475 megabytes. So I am pretty much forced to believe it. Perhaps Adobe is going in the right direction again in the transition from reader 9 to reader 10, and dumping some unnecessary crap. -Original Message- From: Robert Derman [mailto:robert.der...@pressenter.com] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 21:24 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader [ ... ] What I meant by HUGE when I referred to Adobe Reader was the more than 6 Gigs of hard drive space it takes up! By contrast all of the LibreOffice suite of programs takes up 475 Megs of space. That means that a mere reader takes up more than a dozen times the space of an entire office suite. If that isn't mega-bloat I don't know what is. It has been a long time, but I seem to remember Adobe Reader only taking 12 Megs of space at one time. It used to come included on almost all driver disks, now it is just too big for that. [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF
On 06/25/2011 02:09 PM, Nuno J. Silva wrote: On 2011-06-25, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote The problem is that the research I've been doing about this subject has been leading me to the position that LibO/OOo is not going to implement it because it must be implemented in ODF, and because ODF won't support that. So, after reading your messages, there are two issues: 1. There's a misunderstanding of the position held by the ODF TC (or maybe it was some decision taken long ago of which you don't know?), and 2. this sounds like a chicken and egg problem, LibO/OOo will only implement embedding if it gets in ODF, and it will only get in ODF if there's a working implementation. I've always held the opinion the chicken must have come first, because egg is shorthand for [chicken] egg. But I doubt this helps here. In other words, they desire a reference implementation. I understand how that works (been there, done that for an Interval mathematics proposal for Fortran). I see font embedding as a way to make interoperation easier, and not to achieve faithful representation. I think a major goal is to have ODF being used on several platforms, and available fonts differ from platform to platform. OTOH I guess LibO can (and probably already does?) bundle some fonts with it, so that the default fonts are available on every install of LibO (but this still excludes other ODF-compatible applications). I always wondered how embedding fonts worked from a copyright perspective. I use my favorite special font that I purchased for my own use, then I create a document that uses (and embeds) that font in the document. -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF
On 2011-06-25, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote: On 06/25/2011 02:09 PM, Nuno J. Silva wrote: I see font embedding as a way to make interoperation easier, and not to achieve faithful representation. I think a major goal is to have ODF being used on several platforms, and available fonts differ from platform to platform. OTOH I guess LibO can (and probably already does?) bundle some fonts with it, so that the default fonts are available on every install of LibO (but this still excludes other ODF-compatible applications). I always wondered how embedding fonts worked from a copyright perspective. I use my favorite special font that I purchased for my own use, then I create a document that uses (and embeds) that font in the document. At least the TrueType format has an embeddable flag, which should say whether the font can be shared, embed in a document, etc.: ,[http://enwp.org/TrueType#Embedding_protection] | Embedding protection | | The TrueType format allows for the most basic type of digital rights | management – an embeddable flag that specifies if author allows | embedding of the font file into things like PDF files and | websites.[...] ` An ideal approach would be raising a warning when embedding a protected font in a forbidden way. But of course this wouldn't suit the hungry US legislation -- there LibO would probably need to completely forbid embedding protected fonts (even if there is no way to know if the document with embed fonts is going to be shared). See http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=2402 for an example of DMCA in action. I think that, in case LibO embeds fonts, this _just_ means LibO must respect that bit. But I might be wrong. -- Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) gopher://sdf-eu.org/1/users/njsg -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF
Nuno J. Silva wrote: On 2011-06-25, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote: On 06/25/2011 02:09 PM, Nuno J. Silva wrote: I see font embedding as a way to make interoperation easier, and not to achieve faithful representation. I think a major goal is to have ODF being used on several platforms, and available fonts differ from platform to platform. OTOH I guess LibO can (and probably already does?) bundle some fonts with it, so that the default fonts are available on every install of LibO (but this still excludes other ODF-compatible applications). I always wondered how embedding fonts worked from a copyright perspective. I use my favorite special font that I purchased for my own use, then I create a document that uses (and embeds) that font in the document. At least the TrueType format has an embeddable flag, which should say whether the font can be shared, embed in a document, etc.: ,[http://enwp.org/TrueType#Embedding_protection] | Embedding protection | | The TrueType format allows for the most basic type of digital rights | management – an embeddable flag that specifies if author allows | embedding of the font file into things like PDF files and | websites.[...] ` An ideal approach would be raising a warning when embedding a protected font in a forbidden way. But of course this wouldn't suit the hungry US legislation -- there LibO would probably need to completely forbid embedding protected fonts (even if there is no way to know if the document with embed fonts is going to be shared). I think it would be best if restricted fonts were simply Grayed out in the font listing and LO simply refused to use them in any way. See http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=2402 for an example of DMCA in action. I think that, in case LibO embeds fonts, this _just_ means LibO must respect that bit. But I might be wrong. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review, prerequisite for balloting as OASIS Standard
Marc Paré wrote: Le 2011-06-24 18:01, Nuno J. Silva a écrit : On 2011-06-24, Marc Paré wrote: Le 2011-06-24 13:13, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit : Hello, Le Fri, 24 Jun 2011 07:48:54 -0700 (PDT), plinopedl...@gmail.com a écrit : I really hope that revision 1.2 allows for font embedding in ODF documents. IMO that is a (the?) major obstacle for sharing documents with other users. So, let me state and restate this : ODF will not embed fonts in the 1.2, 1.3, nor in the future, because the format is not meant to focus on faithful layout rendering. Instead, PDF is meant that. ODF focuses on office document exchanges. This could eventually destroy ODF as a viable world standard if at some point some software company or organization comes up with a popular program (example Microsoft) that embeds fonts so that anyone editing the document, viewing it, or printing it uses the same font chosen by the original author. No computer standard is likely to survive long term as long as adamant decisions are (carved in stone) and not left to future users to contramand if deemed expedient. I wonder about this last statement, does this mean that if I download a copy of our documentation in .odt format, that if my font is missing from my machine that I will not be able to print a high quality version of that documentation. You will be able to print an high-quality version. It will just use another font. I mean, you lose quality in the meaning the font used is not the intended, but you don't lose quality as in definition or content. Yes, I understand, however, the look in print will not be exactly what the author had first set it to be. And worse, if I download a copy of a writer, impress file or draw and wish to print it off in its native file, that I would then have to hunt around and make sure that all of the necessary fonts used in a particular document would have to be installed on my machine so that I could get a high quality print from it? To be sure documents print the same way in different computers, you should use Adobe PostScript or Adobe Portable Document Format. I don't mean font embedding is not needed, but just that you're looking into a part of the problem that already has a solution, as far as you don't need the document to be editable. Yes, we are discussing this in another thread at the moment. It would be nice if this were possible in our native ODF. Cheers marc -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF
У суб, 25. 06 2011. у 15:23 -0500, Robert Derman пише: I think it would be best if restricted fonts were simply Grayed out in the font listing and LO simply refused to use them in any way. Let us try not to repeat everything said before here: http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20370 There are many valid concerns there. But do not forget that LibreOffice is free software*, you can always hack your own patches, try to raise a bounty and engage new developers or something else... About the ODF format, there should be a process at OASIS and ODF TC how to participate. But it would probably be more effective if there is a working code for the proposed features, not just a tagline let us do it. Trying not to speak in anybody's name, if this becomes implemented in LibreOffice and community wants it, TDF can probably advocate it officially inside the ODF TC. *) free as in freedom Goran Rakic -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On 25 Jun 2011, at 08:33, Ian Lynch wrote: Manfred wrote: I still believe that PDF is the best solution to distribute final versions of text (and maybe other office) documents. I'd say yes if they are likely to be printed on paper, no if it is only likely to be read from a screen. I disagree. Once a document no longer needs editing (and this is a frequent need in daily life - think purchase receipt, invoice, insurance schedule and so on) it needs to be provided in an electronic format that cannot be easily altered. PDF plays this role, ODF doesn't. No, but HTML does. More to the point, chm files also are build for read-only. Surely they are more microsoft based, but even Read (activity from the OLPC/Sugar), had to add a webkit renderer for another popular format -- epub. Which of course is done for read-only porpouses. So a bigger discussion than demanding PDF reader, might be to upgrade the very old HTML renderer in LibreOffice to something like webkit. S. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader
I dont thinks thats normal somehow, i have been using Adobe Reader for years and have NEVER had it come past 200MB. Back to discussion, what's with all the PDF hate. It serves a very good purpose a standard, editable document that shows up exactly how you want it WHEREVER you are and whatever OS you are using. this has always been its use and so it falls in a different document category to ODF. ODF is an office format created to compete with MSO's doc, xls an ppt formats. to essentially modify the underlying purpose to make it behave more like a PDF would waste most of what we have put into it. On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Robert Derman robert.der...@pressenter.com wrote: Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: My Windows 7 C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Reader 10.0\ folder is 181 MB. Where do you get the 6 GB? I simply right clicked on the folder that contains adobe reader 9 and nothing else, the rest of the Adobe products are in a folder one level up that also contains the reader folder, in any case when I click properties, that is the size it lists, in fact to be more exact 6.2 gigabytes. I did the same with the folder containing LibreOffice, and it listed the size of that as 475 megabytes. So I am pretty much forced to believe it. Perhaps Adobe is going in the right direction again in the transition from reader 9 to reader 10, and dumping some unnecessary crap. -Original Message- From: Robert Derman [mailto:robert.der...@pressenter.com] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 21:24 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader [ ... ] What I meant by HUGE when I referred to Adobe Reader was the more than 6 Gigs of hard drive space it takes up! By contrast all of the LibreOffice suite of programs takes up 475 Megs of space. That means that a mere reader takes up more than a dozen times the space of an entire office suite. If that isn't mega-bloat I don't know what is. It has been a long time, but I seem to remember Adobe Reader only taking 12 Megs of space at one time. It used to come included on almost all driver disks, now it is just too big for that. [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Sean White, I've Seen the Cow Level -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)
+1 although it is about fidelity too, especially in things like presentations. -Original Message- From: Andrew Douglas Pitonyak [mailto:and...@pitonyak.org] Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 10:27 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review) [ ... ] Off hand, I would say that embedding a font is not just for readers to use. I would say that there must then be support for LO to fully use that in the editor for viewing, editing, printing, and generating other file formats that support it (such as PDF with embedded fonts). -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF
A working implementation would be great, although a working specification would be better, since the ODF can consider that while others test it for implementation. And if you want to build it into a LibreOffice as an extended use of the format, all the better, but you need to be prepared for the ODF specification to vary, cover cases that were maybe not considered, etc., and maybe even be simplified. So you don't generally want to get too far on the bleeding edge. But a feasibility demonstration would be great and would carry a lot of weight if specified in an implementation-independent manner. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Goran Rakic [mailto:gra...@devbase.net] Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 13:56 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF У суб, 25. 06 2011. у 15:23 -0500, Robert Derman пише: I think it would be best if restricted fonts were simply Grayed out in the font listing and LO simply refused to use them in any way. Let us try not to repeat everything said before here: http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20370 There are many valid concerns there. But do not forget that LibreOffice is free software*, you can always hack your own patches, try to raise a bounty and engage new developers or something else... About the ODF format, there should be a process at OASIS and ODF TC how to participate. But it would probably be more effective if there is a working code for the proposed features, not just a tagline let us do it. Trying not to speak in anybody's name, if this becomes implemented in LibreOffice and community wants it, TDF can probably advocate it officially inside the ODF TC. *) free as in freedom Goran Rakic -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 ...)
All right, let's put a stake through the heart of this puppy. I just created three documents. One is pretty large so I put them at Windows SkyDrive: https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=33894f6489994ba7resid=33894F6489994BA7!371 1. A Microsoft Word 2010 1-page document with a small image and completely using the Linux Biolinum G font, a GPL-ed font that came along with LibreOffice 3.3.2, the one I use for ODF production work. The document is almost 4 MB because I asked Word to embed every font (it included 9, including the Biolinum G). This is the Word document whose name begins with Fonts-2011-06-25-18100-.. 2. An OpenOffice Text document produced from the Word document. It has no fonts and it is quite small. If you open it in LibreOffice 3.x, you may encounter a complaint that the file is corrupted. If so, let LibreOffice correct the document and it should be fine. (There is some breakage between some ODF 1.1 producers and some ODF 1.2 (anticipatory) consumers and we need to sort that out. 3. A PDF. It doesn't seem to have the fonts either. Apparently the export didn't conclude that any were needed. I gave it permission to export the ones it could. Alternatively, it might have exported just what was needed. I can't tell. - Dennis -Original Message- From: charles.h.sch...@gmail.com [mailto:charles.h.sch...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Charles-H. Schulz Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 08:33 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review) Le Sat, 25 Jun 2011 08:01:26 -0700 (PDT), plino pedl...@gmail.com a écrit : Charles-H. Schulz wrote: No it doesn't. Of course it does. Maybe you don't use it or don't know how to do it. But don't say it doesn't. So are you saying your word documents embed fonts on a daily basis? I've never seen any similar documents. You get the impression of that -maybe- because on a windows to windows environment everybody uses fonts that are already available on the system. Of course, ODF (and others) do keep the reference of the font name and if I have the same font on my system it will try to reuse the same font. But just for reference: except for specific cases: office document formats including MSOffice DON'T include fonts. PDF does (there are less used formats) and that's what it's know for. Charles-H. Schulz wrote: But I think we're also missing the point if -let's say we were to design a brand new office file format that embeds or does not embed fonts- why should anyone be using it? Choosing a format that's not the dominant format is already a reasoned choice, oftentimes an act of departure from the dominant player, and sometimes a political act. I think you are missing the point: it's not simply a matter of the embedded fonts. If the brand new file format that you are creating wants to attract users it can never have less features than the one it wants to replace. Or at least it can not miss critical features. Network effect. Do you have any idea how many superior formats have been created but that never got adopted? Even if people want to switch for political reasons, I'm sure they don't want their work crippled... They don't, that's true. But don't mix the various purposes of formats. Best, Charles. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 ...)
Hi Dennis. On 26/06/11 13:53, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: All right, let's put a stake through the heart of this puppy. I just created three documents. One is pretty large so I put them at Windows SkyDrive: https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=33894f6489994ba7resid=33894F6489994BA7!371 1. A Microsoft Word 2010 1-page document with a small image and completely using the Linux Biolinum G font, a GPL-ed font that came along with LibreOffice 3.3.2, the one I use for ODF production work. The document is almost 4 MB because I asked Word to embed every font (it included 9, including the Biolinum G). This is the Word document whose name begins with Fonts-2011-06-25-18100-.. 2. An OpenOffice Text document produced from the Word document. It has no fonts and it is quite small. If you open it in LibreOffice 3.x, you may encounter a complaint that the file is corrupted. If so, let LibreOffice correct the document and it should be fine. (There is some breakage between some ODF 1.1 producers and some ODF 1.2 (anticipatory) consumers and we need to sort that out. 3. A PDF. It doesn't seem to have the fonts either. Apparently the export didn't conclude that any were needed. I gave it permission to export the ones it could. Alternatively, it might have exported just what was needed. I can't tell. - Dennis -Original Message- From: charles.h.sch...@gmail.com [mailto:charles.h.sch...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Charles-H. Schulz Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 08:33 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review) Le Sat, 25 Jun 2011 08:01:26 -0700 (PDT), plino pedl...@gmail.com a écrit : Charles-H. Schulz wrote: No it doesn't. Of course it does. Maybe you don't use it or don't know how to do it. But don't say it doesn't. So are you saying your word documents embed fonts on a daily basis? I've never seen any similar documents. You get the impression of that -maybe- because on a windows to windows environment everybody uses fonts that are already available on the system. Of course, ODF (and others) do keep the reference of the font name and if I have the same font on my system it will try to reuse the same font. But just for reference: except for specific cases: office document formats including MSOffice DON'T include fonts. PDF does (there are less used formats) and that's what it's know for. Charles-H. Schulz wrote: But I think we're also missing the point if -let's say we were to design a brand new office file format that embeds or does not embed fonts- why should anyone be using it? Choosing a format that's not the dominant format is already a reasoned choice, oftentimes an act of departure from the dominant player, and sometimes a political act. I think you are missing the point: it's not simply a matter of the embedded fonts. If the brand new file format that you are creating wants to attract users it can never have less features than the one it wants to replace. Or at least it can not miss critical features. Network effect. Do you have any idea how many superior formats have been created but that never got adopted? Even if people want to switch for political reasons, I'm sure they don't want their work crippled... They don't, that's true. But don't mix the various purposes of formats. Best, Charles. And an improvement still would be a drop down list of fonts used in the current document allowing multiple select of just those fonts to embed, making LO just that 1 step better. steve -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
