Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Hello Luis, On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:47:55 +0200 Luis Gutiérrez de Cabiedes lgcabie...@ono.com wrote: El 22/06/11 11:42, Tom Davies escribió: [...] Dear Tom. You seem to be one of the headers of this group. I'm triyng to unsuscribe with the links above, but it's imposible. Have you any good idea to help me with this? I'm now collaborating with a diferente group of spanish documenters of the proyect and I need to stop the tsunami of emails coming from this group. thanks. I'm not Tom, but I reply anyways. :) Did you send an email to documentation-unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org? Did you also use the same address to send this message, that is subscribed to this list? You should have gotten a message asking you, if you really want to unsubscribe. (check your spam folder, if you haven't seen this message yet). Reply to this message. This means, open it to read, then hit the reply button within your email program and send the message. You don't need to add anything. You should get a Good-bye message and that will be the last thing you receive from this list. May I ask with which group you're collaborating now? (I'm just curious). Hope this helps. Sigrid -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
El 22/06/11 11:42, Tom Davies escribió: Hi :) It is interesting to hear about free stuff from MS. One always wonders what tricks, caveats, lock-ins and what traps are being sprung. Regards from Tom :) From: Gary Schnablgschn...@swdetroit.com To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Wed, 22 June, 2011 9:57:50 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides Hi When checking the PDF version of the Calc guide I found it hard, compared to html to move around the document. I would like to propose that an HTML version is produced. I would be happy to undertake the work. I am not sure what open source html producers/editors are available, but will do some research into what is available. Does anyone else think this is a good/bad idea. Regards John Cleland If you plan to do what you plan, try using a WYSIWYG application like MS Expression (formerly FrontPage) or Adobe's DreamWeaver. Microsoft has such a free deal with its WebSpark program. You get the use of MS Visual Studio 10 and the Expression suite to use for three years for nothing--and get to keep them afterward: http://www.microsoft.com/web/websitespark/ Gary Dear Tom. You seem to be one of the headers of this group. I'm triyng to unsuscribe with the links above, but it's imposible. Have you any good idea to help me with this? I'm now collaborating with a diferente group of spanish documenters of the proyect and I need to stop the tsunami of emails coming from this group. thanks. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Hi :) MS Office 2007 2010 can open the older ODF format but tend to struggle a bit with the newer one. I don't think Base forms and Reports are compatible but i haven't tried it so i don't know. There is apparently an add-on to make MS Office 2003 be able to read the old ODF format too but i don't know how stable or what versions of MSO it works on. Tools - Options - Load/Save - General then about halfway up change the drop-downs default from 1.2 Extended (recommended) to 1.0/1.1 Regards from Tom :) From: planas jsloz...@gmail.com To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Sat, 25 June, 2011 6:55:33 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides Andrew On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 01:27 -0400, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote: On 06/23/2011 10:13 AM, Marc Paré wrote: We are essentially saying the same thing. For necessary files where the ODF cannot be read due to the inability of having LibreOffice installed to read ODF files then falling back on .pdf's is fine. If there is a need to create a quick and dirty ODF reader, then we should put this to the dev's as a project -- a LibreOffice Reader. We should not be advocating the use of any other format unless we really have to. If our documents are so important for a user to want to read, then they should download our product to read our wonderful manuals. I expect to see PDF readers on certain platforms long before I see an ODF reader (iPhone, Android, Kindle, etc), yet I may use those devices to read my documents when I am away from my computer. Would love to have a copy of LO that works on my portable platforms, but I really do not expect it any time soon. Would be nice, however I would rate that as a much lower priority that some other issues in the software (like say a better macro recorder). Otherwise, we relegate the ODF (and LibreOffice) to a secondary position -- there will always be individuals inside our group who will clamour for a .pdf version to add universality to our product line. This is completely counter-productive. The request for .pdf will never cease and all of our documentation will be in ODF/PDF versions with no real reason to fully adopt the ODF format by any user. Well, off hand, I can download the ODF file, generate the PDF, but then I must move it through my computer before I move it on to the devices that do not support ODF. I need to also make certain that you provide all the fonts that I require and install those. I used to have that problem with PDFs generated by my employer. They used some strange font that my computer did not have. I had to install the font before I could view the document. Need to teach them how to embed the font into a PDF file. I may be wrong, but I believe MSO 2010 and 2007? are able to open ODF files except for possibly Base Worse, corporate adoption of our product will be hard to get if they will never see the benefits of using our products if they only read it through .pdf formats for their convenience. It is difficult to issue accolades to a product that second guesses itself to its intended user base. If pdf's are so necessary, then people should be looking for a .pdf office suite as everyone extolls its virtues. Most of the clients that I see, and even where I work, most of the users are not given sufficient permissions that they are able to install new software on their computers. In most cases, documents that I generate using ODF must be converted to another form for delivery. The only place you will likely have traction when you say download this to look at my documents is when you generate a document of sufficient interest that the average user is willing to do so. I don't think Adobe would ever suggest to anyone else to use a different format for people to read their manuals, they would of course tell all to download their reader and to then read their wonderful manuals. Easy to shoot holes in most of my concerns as they relates to say LO documentation, however, because the person who desires LO documentation likely has LO installed. So, acrobat documentation as a PDF makes sense. Better not use fonts that the user will not have, however. Consider that in Gnome 3 they removed the minimize button because the average user will be confused by it where did my program go. Off hand, I would say that if that is true, then it is not reasonable to expect a user to install much of anything (I must be tired and cranky). When I am using a computer that is not my own (say at work, at a library, visiting a neighbor or family) and I want to look up something in the documentation Asking to install a large piece of software is frequently not an option. I know people that still use dial-up. We should do the same, as we do have the better format of the two. The use of .dpf's
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Hi :) It might be worth posting a bug-report http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport Regards from Tom :) From: Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Sat, 25 June, 2011 6:31:21 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides On 06/23/2011 02:15 PM, planas wrote: You are missing the point - I do not need Acrobat to generate a pdf file. You can do it easily in LO. The pdf will open in Reader with no problems. LO has some bugs in this regard. Last couple of PDFA-1a that I tried crashed the reader every time. Every generated PDF should probably be tested. -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On 06/25/2011 01:55 AM, planas wrote: Andrew I may be wrong, but I believe MSO 2010 and 2007? are able to open ODF files except for possibly Base I had heard (meaning way back when ever) that MS would support ODF before they supported their own proposed standard. I was reading ODF files in MSO even before that using the plug-in created by Sun (and then pulled by Oracle to become a for-pay product). I only move simple ODF documents to Word because of issues with respect to things such as: Frames, Links, and Styles. For the most part, complex documents read into MSO is a one way trip. MSO and OOo do not have good compatibility for complex things. The simplest of examples is that OOo and LO rely on styles in a serious way. MSO has improved style support, but can't even begin to come close to the support provided by OOo. So, when I create a complex document, if the deliverable is a PDF, I am likely to use OOo (historically, it has had much better PDF export capabilities). If the deliverable is a Word document, then I start with Word and stay in Word. I have worked for only one client that would accept an ODF document as a deliverable. Ironically, it was a requirement. -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Thanks for the link. Very adept at filing OOo bug reports, never opened one against LO. I only recently installed LO, and that was to test if they had integrated a bug fix that seriously affects me in OOo (it is fixed in OOo 3.3.1, but that has not been released, and the fix is in the latest full release of LO). On the other hand, LO introduced a new bug that also seriously affects me (DEL does not work in the IDE). I am told that the bug is already fixed in the latest release candidate. Would need to verify that the PDF bug is not already fixed in the latest release candidate first. Feels like a pretty serious over site to not have already been discovered. I have theories as to why that might be On 06/25/2011 05:24 AM, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) It might be worth posting a bug-report http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport Regards from Tom :) From: Andrew Douglas Pitonyakand...@pitonyak.org To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Sat, 25 June, 2011 6:31:21 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides On 06/23/2011 02:15 PM, planas wrote: You are missing the point - I do not need Acrobat to generate a pdf file. You can do it easily in LO. The pdf will open in Reader with no problems. LO has some bugs in this regard. Last couple of PDFA-1a that I tried crashed the reader every time. Every generated PDF should probably be tested. -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Le 2011-06-25 16:15, Tom Davies a écrit : Hi :) I think the devs are working through old OOo bug-reports but the LO space has better functionality allowing extra categories such as Easy Hack. So, even if a bug-report has been filed again OOo it probably wouldn't hurt to file it against LO and then maybe help the triagers by giving the Url address of the old OOo one so that they can decide how to handle it. Good luck and regards from Tom :) From: Andrew Douglas Pitonyakand...@pitonyak.org To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Sat, 25 June, 2011 20:38:41 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides Thanks for the link. Very adept at filing OOo bug reports, never opened one against LO. I only recently installed LO, and that was to test if they had integrated a bug fix that seriously affects me in OOo (it is fixed in OOo 3.3.1, but that has not been released, and the fix is in the latest full release of LO). On the other hand, LO introduced a new bug that also seriously affects me (DEL does not work in the IDE). I am told that the bug is already fixed in the latest release candidate. Would need to verify that the PDF bug is not already fixed in the latest release candidate first. Feels like a pretty serious over site to not have already been discovered. I have theories as to why that might be On 06/25/2011 05:24 AM, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) It might be worth posting a bug-report http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport Regards from Tom :) From: Andrew Douglas Pitonyakand...@pitonyak.org To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Sat, 25 June, 2011 6:31:21 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides On 06/23/2011 02:15 PM, planas wrote: You are missing the point - I do not need Acrobat to generate a pdf file. You can do it easily in LO. The pdf will open in Reader with no problems. LO has some bugs in this regard. Last couple of PDFA-1a that I tried crashed the reader every time. Every generated PDF should probably be tested. -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php Also, FYI, I have been monitoring the number of mails on the dev list. On most regular days, the devs post close to 100 mails per day. If you take a quick look at the dev mail exchanges, many of these are fixes or working-towards-a-fix-soon exchange of mails. This is an awesome rate of exchange of mail correspondence on a dev list. If there is a known bug, the devs have a quick response to their fixes. Feeding the LibreOffice bugzilla is the best way to quash those bugs. And, thanks to the devs for their amazing work! Cheers Marc -- Marc Paré http://www.parEntreprise.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On 06/23/2011 10:13 AM, Marc Paré wrote: We are essentially saying the same thing. For necessary files where the ODF cannot be read due to the inability of having LibreOffice installed to read ODF files then falling back on .pdf's is fine. If there is a need to create a quick and dirty ODF reader, then we should put this to the dev's as a project -- a LibreOffice Reader. We should not be advocating the use of any other format unless we really have to. If our documents are so important for a user to want to read, then they should download our product to read our wonderful manuals. I expect to see PDF readers on certain platforms long before I see an ODF reader (iPhone, Android, Kindle, etc), yet I may use those devices to read my documents when I am away from my computer. Would love to have a copy of LO that works on my portable platforms, but I really do not expect it any time soon. Would be nice, however I would rate that as a much lower priority that some other issues in the software (like say a better macro recorder). Otherwise, we relegate the ODF (and LibreOffice) to a secondary position -- there will always be individuals inside our group who will clamour for a .pdf version to add universality to our product line. This is completely counter-productive. The request for .pdf will never cease and all of our documentation will be in ODF/PDF versions with no real reason to fully adopt the ODF format by any user. Well, off hand, I can download the ODF file, generate the PDF, but then I must move it through my computer before I move it on to the devices that do not support ODF. I need to also make certain that you provide all the fonts that I require and install those. I used to have that problem with PDFs generated by my employer. They used some strange font that my computer did not have. I had to install the font before I could view the document. Need to teach them how to embed the font into a PDF file. Worse, corporate adoption of our product will be hard to get if they will never see the benefits of using our products if they only read it through .pdf formats for their convenience. It is difficult to issue accolades to a product that second guesses itself to its intended user base. If pdf's are so necessary, then people should be looking for a .pdf office suite as everyone extolls its virtues. Most of the clients that I see, and even where I work, most of the users are not given sufficient permissions that they are able to install new software on their computers. In most cases, documents that I generate using ODF must be converted to another form for delivery. The only place you will likely have traction when you say download this to look at my documents is when you generate a document of sufficient interest that the average user is willing to do so. I don't think Adobe would ever suggest to anyone else to use a different format for people to read their manuals, they would of course tell all to download their reader and to then read their wonderful manuals. Easy to shoot holes in most of my concerns as they relates to say LO documentation, however, because the person who desires LO documentation likely has LO installed. So, acrobat documentation as a PDF makes sense. Better not use fonts that the user will not have, however. Consider that in Gnome 3 they removed the minimize button because the average user will be confused by it where did my program go. Off hand, I would say that if that is true, then it is not reasonable to expect a user to install much of anything (I must be tired and cranky). When I am using a computer that is not my own (say at work, at a library, visiting a neighbor or family) and I want to look up something in the documentation Asking to install a large piece of software is frequently not an option. I know people that still use dial-up. We should do the same, as we do have the better format of the two. The use of .dpf's should be done in a very strategic way and not in a universally applied fashion. All of my opinions. Cheers Marc It is not possible to embed fonts in an ODF document, but I can in a PDF document. Then again, last time I tried to create a PDF/A-1a using LO, the generated PDF was not usable (it caused my PDF reader to crash). Last time I tried this with OOo, it worked fine. -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Andrew On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 01:27 -0400, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote: On 06/23/2011 10:13 AM, Marc Paré wrote: We are essentially saying the same thing. For necessary files where the ODF cannot be read due to the inability of having LibreOffice installed to read ODF files then falling back on .pdf's is fine. If there is a need to create a quick and dirty ODF reader, then we should put this to the dev's as a project -- a LibreOffice Reader. We should not be advocating the use of any other format unless we really have to. If our documents are so important for a user to want to read, then they should download our product to read our wonderful manuals. I expect to see PDF readers on certain platforms long before I see an ODF reader (iPhone, Android, Kindle, etc), yet I may use those devices to read my documents when I am away from my computer. Would love to have a copy of LO that works on my portable platforms, but I really do not expect it any time soon. Would be nice, however I would rate that as a much lower priority that some other issues in the software (like say a better macro recorder). Otherwise, we relegate the ODF (and LibreOffice) to a secondary position -- there will always be individuals inside our group who will clamour for a .pdf version to add universality to our product line. This is completely counter-productive. The request for .pdf will never cease and all of our documentation will be in ODF/PDF versions with no real reason to fully adopt the ODF format by any user. Well, off hand, I can download the ODF file, generate the PDF, but then I must move it through my computer before I move it on to the devices that do not support ODF. I need to also make certain that you provide all the fonts that I require and install those. I used to have that problem with PDFs generated by my employer. They used some strange font that my computer did not have. I had to install the font before I could view the document. Need to teach them how to embed the font into a PDF file. I may be wrong, but I believe MSO 2010 and 2007? are able to open ODF files except for possibly Base Worse, corporate adoption of our product will be hard to get if they will never see the benefits of using our products if they only read it through .pdf formats for their convenience. It is difficult to issue accolades to a product that second guesses itself to its intended user base. If pdf's are so necessary, then people should be looking for a .pdf office suite as everyone extolls its virtues. Most of the clients that I see, and even where I work, most of the users are not given sufficient permissions that they are able to install new software on their computers. In most cases, documents that I generate using ODF must be converted to another form for delivery. The only place you will likely have traction when you say download this to look at my documents is when you generate a document of sufficient interest that the average user is willing to do so. I don't think Adobe would ever suggest to anyone else to use a different format for people to read their manuals, they would of course tell all to download their reader and to then read their wonderful manuals. Easy to shoot holes in most of my concerns as they relates to say LO documentation, however, because the person who desires LO documentation likely has LO installed. So, acrobat documentation as a PDF makes sense. Better not use fonts that the user will not have, however. Consider that in Gnome 3 they removed the minimize button because the average user will be confused by it where did my program go. Off hand, I would say that if that is true, then it is not reasonable to expect a user to install much of anything (I must be tired and cranky). When I am using a computer that is not my own (say at work, at a library, visiting a neighbor or family) and I want to look up something in the documentation Asking to install a large piece of software is frequently not an option. I know people that still use dial-up. We should do the same, as we do have the better format of the two. The use of .dpf's should be done in a very strategic way and not in a universally applied fashion. All of my opinions. Cheers Marc It is not possible to embed fonts in an ODF document, but I can in a PDF document. Then again, last time I tried to create a PDF/A-1a using LO, the generated PDF was not usable (it caused my PDF reader to crash). Last time I tried this with OOo, it worked fine. -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php -- Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Hi, My 2 cents would be that the best format for guides is .odt, plus a publication of the user-ready version in PDF. I don't think an HTML version would really be a useful idea. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Le 2011-06-23 02:30, David Nelson a écrit : Hi, My 2 cents would be that the best format for guides is .odt, plus a publication of the user-ready version in PDF. I don't think an HTML version would really be a useful idea. -- David Nelson I will chime in as well. I would rather see the ODF versions first and the .pdf only if needed. We are, after all, telling people that we have the best office suite on earth, so let's prove it! It does work!. I would even go as far as not publishing any .pdf versions. People needing documentation will have LibreOffice to read the ODF files. I would only supply .pdf files if it involved anything with the installation of LibreOffice. Cheers Marc -- Marc Paré http://www.parEntreprise.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 18:27, Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com wrote: Le 2011-06-23 02:30, David Nelson a écrit : Hi, My 2 cents would be that the best format for guides is .odt, plus a publication of the user-ready version in PDF. I don't think an HTML version would really be a useful idea. -- David Nelson I will chime in as well. I would rather see the ODF versions first and the .pdf only if needed. We are, after all, telling people that we have the best office suite on earth, so let's prove it! It does work!. I would even go as far as not publishing any .pdf versions. People needing documentation will have LibreOffice to read the ODF files. I would only supply .pdf files if it involved anything with the installation of LibreOffice. Cheers Marc Marc, please see my earlier note about the importance and necessity of providing PDFs. --Jean -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Hi, On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Jean Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com wrote: Marc, please see my earlier note about the importance and necessity of providing PDFs. Yeah, I'd agree with Jean about it being important to provide PDFs. Past discussions on this list led to a consensus that ODF's .odt format is the best working medium but, when it comes to publishing, it's best to publish in PDF as well, because anyone can read it, with or without LibreOffice installed. Sure, I'm all for supporting ODF/.odt but, even so, I don't feel we have to ram it down people's throats. :-D IMHO, it's even counterproductive to be dogmatic about it. So, to re-state my own 2 cents, I feel it's best to work in .odt and to publish in .odt and .pdf. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Hi :) Most places that have any kind of leaflet, posters or documentation to download want to have some control over the way it looks. Sadly there is not an adequate Open Document Format so people use PDF. Since PDF is so widely used it forces everyone to use it. I don't think we can make a stand against that right now. We have to use PDF or else marginalise ourselves. Most places that do have pdfs to download also have a button to the Adobe site to download their latest reader (for free) in case people can't read pdfs even though that is desperately unlikely. I think we should have a similar button but perhaps we could choose someone other than Adobe? I think we should also follow that lead and have a button leading people to a stable ODT reader, not our 3.4.x releases! Regards from Tom :) From: Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Thu, 23 June, 2011 9:27:00 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides Le 2011-06-23 02:30, David Nelson a écrit : Hi, My 2 cents would be that the best format for guides is .odt, plus a publication of the user-ready version in PDF. I don't think an HTML version would really be a useful idea. -- David Nelson I will chime in as well. I would rather see the ODF versions first and the .pdf only if needed. We are, after all, telling people that we have the best office suite on earth, so let's prove it! It does work!. I would even go as far as not publishing any .pdf versions. People needing documentation will have LibreOffice to read the ODF files. I would only supply .pdf files if it involved anything with the installation of LibreOffice. Cheers Marc -- Marc Paré http://www.parEntreprise.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Le 2011-06-23 04:35, Jean Weber a écrit : I will chime in as well. I would rather see the ODF versions first and the .pdf only if needed. We are, after all, telling people that we have the best office suite on earth, so let's prove it! It does work!. I would even go as far as not publishing any .pdf versions. People needing documentation will have LibreOffice to read the ODF files. I would only supply .pdf files if it involved anything with the installation of LibreOffice. Cheers Marc Marc, please see my earlier note about the importance and necessity of providing PDFs. --Jean Hi Jean We are essentially saying the same thing. For necessary files where the ODF cannot be read due to the inability of having LibreOffice installed to read ODF files then falling back on .pdf's is fine. If there is a need to create a quick and dirty ODF reader, then we should put this to the dev's as a project -- a LibreOffice Reader. We should not be advocating the use of any other format unless we really have to. If our documents are so important for a user to want to read, then they should download our product to read our wonderful manuals. Otherwise, we relegate the ODF (and LibreOffice) to a secondary position -- there will always be individuals inside our group who will clamour for a .pdf version to add universality to our product line. This is completely counter-productive. The request for .pdf will never cease and all of our documentation will be in ODF/PDF versions with no real reason to fully adopt the ODF format by any user. Worse, corporate adoption of our product will be hard to get if they will never see the benefits of using our products if they only read it through .pdf formats for their convenience. It is difficult to issue accolades to a product that second guesses itself to its intended user base. If pdf's are so necessary, then people should be looking for a .pdf office suite as everyone extolls its virtues. I don't think Adobe would ever suggest to anyone else to use a different format for people to read their manuals, they would of course tell all to download their reader and to then read their wonderful manuals. We should do the same, as we do have the better format of the two. The use of .dpf's should be done in a very strategic way and not in a universally applied fashion. All of my opinions. Cheers Marc -- Marc Paré http://www.parEntreprise.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Hi :) You have 6 seconds and 3 mouse-clicks to grab hold a persons attention before they leave the website. Demanding that they download and install an unfamiliar product pushes people away unless the entire process is completed in under that time. People on an early visit may just open documentation just to see that it's there and easy to access, looks reasonably up-to-date, 'professional' and easy to use. The slightest thing could put people off. Deliberately making documentation difficult to access is unlikely to be of benefit with market penetration as low as it is in English speaking countries. Once we reach 20%, as in Europe, then it is a more viable proposition. Regards from Tom :) From: Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Thu, 23 June, 2011 15:13:56 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides Le 2011-06-23 04:35, Jean Weber a écrit : I will chime in as well. I would rather see the ODF versions first and the .pdf only if needed. We are, after all, telling people that we have the best office suite on earth, so let's prove it! It does work!. I would even go as far as not publishing any .pdf versions. People needing documentation will have LibreOffice to read the ODF files. I would only supply .pdf files if it involved anything with the installation of LibreOffice. Cheers Marc Marc, please see my earlier note about the importance and necessity of providing PDFs. --Jean Hi Jean We are essentially saying the same thing. For necessary files where the ODF cannot be read due to the inability of having LibreOffice installed to read ODF files then falling back on .pdf's is fine. If there is a need to create a quick and dirty ODF reader, then we should put this to the dev's as a project -- a LibreOffice Reader. We should not be advocating the use of any other format unless we really have to. If our documents are so important for a user to want to read, then they should download our product to read our wonderful manuals. Otherwise, we relegate the ODF (and LibreOffice) to a secondary position -- there will always be individuals inside our group who will clamour for a .pdf version to add universality to our product line. This is completely counter-productive. The request for .pdf will never cease and all of our documentation will be in ODF/PDF versions with no real reason to fully adopt the ODF format by any user. Worse, corporate adoption of our product will be hard to get if they will never see the benefits of using our products if they only read it through .pdf formats for their convenience. It is difficult to issue accolades to a product that second guesses itself to its intended user base. If pdf's are so necessary, then people should be looking for a .pdf office suite as everyone extolls its virtues. I don't think Adobe would ever suggest to anyone else to use a different format for people to read their manuals, they would of course tell all to download their reader and to then read their wonderful manuals. We should do the same, as we do have the better format of the two. The use of .dpf's should be done in a very strategic way and not in a universally applied fashion. All of my opinions. Cheers Marc -- Marc Paré http://www.parEntreprise.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On Thursday, 23. June 2011 16:13:56 Marc Paré wrote: We are essentially saying the same thing. For necessary files where the ODF cannot be read due to the inability of having LibreOffice installed to read ODF files then falling back on .pdf's is fine. PDF has a different purpose: to show a document in identical layout on any output media. ODF in contrast is the preferred data format for supporting all kinds of documents needed in an office environment. To support office productivity is a substantially different aspect from supporting media independant layout. If there is a need to create a quick and dirty ODF reader, then we should put this to the dev's as a project -- a LibreOffice Reader. We should not be advocating the use of any other format unless we really have to. If our documents are so important for a user to want to read, then they should download our product to read our wonderful manuals. This ist questionable, sorry. To use a complex software, you need as much help and support as possible. This is true on any level of skill. So no software supplier would leave out e.g. online help and state that anybody should read only ODF/PDF/whatever Manuals. Nobody would ignore wikis when trying to solve a problem because they are not ODF formatted. Or forums or mailinglists or whatever. Where do you live? We have to help the users to use the software best possible (and not to force them to use a certain output format if seeking help, what strange ideas do you people have?!)! For that, IMHO our ambition should be to offer the Manuals in as many formats as possible, so a user can decide which suites best his/her actual needs. So my statement would be: Stay with ODF as master (as long as there is not a more conveniant solution) and try to offer PDF /and/ HTML in addition. Ideally, the PDF and HTML conversion should be done as automatically as possible, so no need for additional manpower. Otherwise, we relegate the ODF (and LibreOffice) to a secondary position -- there will always be individuals inside our group who will clamour for a .pdf version to add universality to our product line. This is completely counter-productive. The request for .pdf will never cease and all of our documentation will be in ODF/PDF versions with no real reason to fully adopt the ODF format by any user. Worse, corporate adoption of our product will be hard to get if they will never see the benefits of using our products if they only read it through .pdf formats for their convenience. ODF does have different advantages. Competing with PDF is not among them. Or at least, not yet. If the ESC decides to take that challenge, it might be an option in the future. But ATM it's out of scope IMHO. Nino -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 16:55, Nino Novak nn.l...@kflog.org wrote: So my statement would be: Stay with ODF as master (as long as there is not a more conveniant solution) and try to offer PDF /and/ HTML in addition. Ideally, the PDF and HTML conversion should be done as automatically as possible, so no need for additional manpower. You've hit in an important point Nino. The doc team does not have the manpower available to create and maintain independent documentation streams. HTML is a fine idea, but not as a leading/primary format. If there is a need for HTML, then do it as an output/publishing format from the ODT sources. Clayton -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 04:27 -0400, Marc Paré wrote: Le 2011-06-23 02:30, David Nelson a écrit : Hi, My 2 cents would be that the best format for guides is .odt, plus a publication of the user-ready version in PDF. I don't think an HTML version would really be a useful idea. -- David Nelson I will chime in as well. I would rather see the ODF versions first and the .pdf only if needed. We are, after all, telling people that we have the best office suite on earth, so let's prove it! It does work!. I would even go as far as not publishing any .pdf versions. People needing documentation will have LibreOffice to read the ODF files. I would only supply .pdf files if it involved anything with the installation of LibreOffice. Cheers Marc -- Marc Paré http://www.parEntreprise.com I agree with ODF formats for our documentation and then other versions as needed latter. When they are made, when can state the where saved/exported for the LO, plugging some of the other capabilities of LO. I would not use htiml unless someone cleans up the code. Most program generated html I have seen is very difficult to follow, debug, and maintain without someone cleaning it up. Ofteh I have found myself redoing the pages with hand coding only. -- Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
From: planas jsloz...@gmail.com To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Thu, 23 June, 2011 16:16:48 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 04:27 -0400, Marc Paré wrote: Le 2011-06-23 02:30, David Nelson a écrit : Hi, My 2 cents would be that the best format for guides is .odt, plus a publication of the user-ready version in PDF. I don't think an HTML version would really be a useful idea. -- David Nelson I will chime in as well. I would rather see the ODF versions first and the .pdf only if needed. We are, after all, telling people that we have the best office suite on earth, so let's prove it! It does work!. I would even go as far as not publishing any .pdf versions. People needing documentation will have LibreOffice to read the ODF files. I would only supply .pdf files if it involved anything with the installation of LibreOffice. Cheers Marc -- Marc Paré http://www.parEntreprise.com I agree with ODF formats for our documentation and then other versions as needed latter. When they are made, when can state the where saved/exported for the LO, plugging some of the other capabilities of LO. I would not use htiml unless someone cleans up the code. Most program generated html I have seen is very difficult to follow, debug, and maintain without someone cleaning it up. Ofteh I have found myself redoing the pages with hand coding only. Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com Hi :) +1 Except that i get over-excited about allowing people access easily so i fall into rants about needing pdf too lol. Sorry about that Marc! I know Adobe and MS both achieved market dominance partly through non-compliance but since they achieved domination it's difficult to disrupt that. I think we have to pick fights we can win first. Regards from Tom :) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Hi On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 10:41 +0100, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) Most places that have any kind of leaflet, posters or documentation to download want to have some control over the way it looks. Sadly there is not an adequate Open Document Format so people use PDF. Since PDF is so widely used it forces everyone to use it. I don't think we can make a stand against that right now. We have to use PDF or else marginalise ourselves. Most places that do have pdfs to download also have a button to the Adobe site to download their latest reader (for free) in case people can't read pdfs even though that is desperately unlikely. I think we should have a similar button but perhaps we could choose someone other than Adobe? I think we should also follow that lead and have a button leading people to a stable ODT reader, not our 3.4.x releases! Regards from Tom :) From: Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Thu, 23 June, 2011 9:27:00 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides Le 2011-06-23 02:30, David Nelson a écrit : Hi, My 2 cents would be that the best format for guides is .odt, plus a publication of the user-ready version in PDF. I don't think an HTML version would really be a useful idea. -- David Nelson I will chime in as well. I would rather see the ODF versions first and the .pdf only if needed. We are, after all, telling people that we have the best office suite on earth, so let's prove it! It does work!. I would even go as far as not publishing any .pdf versions. People needing documentation will have LibreOffice to read the ODF files. I would only supply .pdf files if it involved anything with the installation of LibreOffice. Cheers Marc -- Marc Paré http://www.parEntreprise.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted True most people are conditioned to look a pdf file. But one save LO documents with a password which maintains version/document control. This feature is (also in MSO) is rarely used, I think because most people are not aware of it. The Acrobat Reader is a marketing tool for Adobe to make pdf popular and improve sales of the Acrobat. There are currently several free readers for Linux and Windows. Some are considered better than Reader itself. Maybe instead of link to Adobe we have a link, if possible, to a FOSS pdf reader. People can still read the pdf and we promote some sister projects. What some have done to get around needing Acrobat to prepare pdf's is use a suite like LO that can export the document as a pdf. Any pdf generated we need can be done in LO and we state that on the page. Any time we revise the document we do it using LO. I have been aware of this feature in OOo/SO for many years when MSO did not have it. -- Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Hi On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 17:09 +0200, C wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 16:55, Nino Novak nn.l...@kflog.org wrote: So my statement would be: Stay with ODF as master (as long as there is not a more conveniant solution) and try to offer PDF /and/ HTML in addition. Ideally, the PDF and HTML conversion should be done as automatically as possible, so no need for additional manpower. You've hit in an important point Nino. The doc team does not have the manpower available to create and maintain independent documentation streams. HTML is a fine idea, but not as a leading/primary format. If there is a need for HTML, then do it as an output/publishing format from the ODT sources. Clayton Generation of pdf is easy for LO, under FILE Export as PDF in Writer and you have your pdf. I would do this after the document has been finalized for release. We can plug this feature, saying something pdf files where generated using LO This will tell people the can generate a pdf file for LO without having to prep it for import into Acrobat or use Acrobat to generate the document. When friends ask about getting Acrobat, I tell them to use the export feature in LO/OOo instead and save the money. The feature has been OOo for several years and is one of the reasons I would use OOo and now LO. -- Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On 6/23/2011 11:31 AM, planas wrote: Hi On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 10:41 +0100, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) Most places that have any kind of leaflet, posters or documentation to download want to have some control over the way it looks. Sadly there is not an adequate Open Document Format so people use PDF. Since PDF is so widely used it forces everyone to use it. I don't think we can make a stand against that right now. We have to use PDF or else marginalise ourselves. Most places that do have pdfs to download also have a button to the Adobe site to download their latest reader (for free) in case people can't read pdfs even though that is desperately unlikely. I think we should have a similar button but perhaps we could choose someone other than Adobe? I think we should also follow that lead and have a button leading people to a stable ODT reader, not our 3.4.x releases! Regards from Tom :) From: Marc Parém...@marcpare.com To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Thu, 23 June, 2011 9:27:00 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides Le 2011-06-23 02:30, David Nelson a écrit : Hi, My 2 cents would be that the best format for guides is .odt, plus a publication of the user-ready version in PDF. I don't think an HTML version would really be a useful idea. -- David Nelson I will chime in as well. I would rather see the ODF versions first and the .pdf only if needed. We are, after all, telling people that we have the best office suite on earth, so let's prove it! It does work!. I would even go as far as not publishing any .pdf versions. People needing documentation will have LibreOffice to read the ODF files. I would only supply .pdf files if it involved anything with the installation of LibreOffice. Cheers Marc -- Marc Paré http://www.parEntreprise.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted True most people are conditioned to look a pdf file. But one save LO documents with a password which maintains version/document control. This feature is (also in MSO) is rarely used, I think because most people are not aware of it. The Acrobat Reader is a marketing tool for Adobe to make pdf popular and improve sales of the Acrobat. There are currently several free readers for Linux and Windows. Some are considered better than Reader itself. Maybe instead of link to Adobe we have a link, if possible, to a FOSS pdf reader. People can still read the pdf and we promote some sister projects. What some have done to get around needing Acrobat to prepare pdf's is use a suite like LO that can export the document as a pdf. Any pdf generated we need can be done in LO and we state that on the page. Any time we revise the document we do it using LO. I have been aware of this feature in OOo/SO for many years when MSO did not have it. An Adobe Acrobat Professional PDF can be generated/converted from another PDF (say, a PDF ported from an ODT file) so as to allow the Comment and Review (aka Comment and Analysis) functionality for any user with the ubiquitous Adobe Reader. Then, any reader (using Adobe Reader) of that enabled PDF can easily make and save any comments, notes, highlighting, etc. directly to the enabled PDF for his own use. A PDF not so enabled cannot be so readily edited by everyday, ordinary readers. Therefore, I suggest that every OOo/LO PDF file be so converted by Adobe Acrobat Professional afterward, prior to release so that OOo/LO users will have that extra functionality. It only takes a few extra seconds to convert a PDF by Acrobat Professional. It seems foolish not to so enable them for the Comment and Review function, considering its ease to do so with no added cost or real time and effort... Gary -- Gary Schnabl Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... Technical Editor forum http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Hi Gary, On Thursday, 23. June 2011 18:35:27 Gary Schnabl wrote: Therefore, I suggest that every OOo/LO PDF file be so converted by Adobe Acrobat Professional afterward, prior to release so that OOo/LO users will have that extra functionality. What purpose do you want this functionality for? ... It seems foolish not to so enable them for the Comment and Review function, considering its ease to do so with no added cost or real time and effort... But for what purpose? Nino -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On 6/23/2011 12:44 PM, Nino Novak wrote: Hi Gary, On Thursday, 23. June 2011 18:35:27 Gary Schnabl wrote: Therefore, I suggest that every OOo/LO PDF file be so converted by Adobe Acrobat Professional afterward, prior to release so that OOo/LO users will have that extra functionality. What purpose do you want this functionality for? ... It seems foolish not to so enable them for the Comment and Review function, considering its ease to do so with no added cost or real time and effort... But for what purpose? Nino DUH! For any users wanting to add any highlighting and such--a thing typically done by millions of students and others over the past few decades on their printed material and books by (usually yellow-colored) magic markers. That highlighting functionality can also be done now electronically on PDFs (as it is commonly done on such converted PDFs) and even carried over to printed hard copy, if users so desire to print them out afterward. In addition to highlighting, editorial comments and the like by users could also be added directly to the PDF documents, among other capabilities. Gary -- Gary Schnabl Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... Technical Editor forum http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Hi :) Lol. Ok, so if anyone has time then it can be done but the ODTs have that sort of functionality anyway and it slightly defeats the purpose of providing a pdf. A nice layer of extra icing if anyone has time :) Regards from Tom :) From: Gary Schnabl gschn...@swdetroit.com To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Thu, 23 June, 2011 17:53:12 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides On 6/23/2011 12:44 PM, Nino Novak wrote: Hi Gary, On Thursday, 23. June 2011 18:35:27 Gary Schnabl wrote: Therefore, I suggest that every OOo/LO PDF file be so converted by Adobe Acrobat Professional afterward, prior to release so that OOo/LO users will have that extra functionality. What purpose do you want this functionality for? ... It seems foolish not to so enable them for the Comment and Review function, considering its ease to do so with no added cost or real time and effort... But for what purpose? Nino DUH! For any users wanting to add any highlighting and such--a thing typically done by millions of students and others over the past few decades on their printed material and books by (usually yellow-colored) magic markers. That highlighting functionality can also be done now electronically on PDFs (as it is commonly done on such converted PDFs) and even carried over to printed hard copy, if users so desire to print them out afterward. In addition to highlighting, editorial comments and the like by users could also be added directly to the PDF documents, among other capabilities. Gary -- Gary Schnabl Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... Technical Editor forum http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 19:04 +0200, C wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 18:53, Gary Schnabl gschn...@swdetroit.com wrote: Therefore, I suggest that every OOo/LO PDF file be so converted by Adobe Acrobat Professional afterward, prior to release so that OOo/LO users will have that extra functionality. What purpose do you want this functionality for? ... It seems foolish not to so enable them for the Comment and Review function, considering its ease to do so with no added cost or real time and effort... But for what purpose? Nino DUH! For any users wanting to add any highlighting and such--a thing typically done by millions of students and others over the past few decades on their printed material and books by (usually yellow-colored) magic markers. That highlighting functionality can also be done now electronically on PDFs (as it is commonly done on such converted PDFs) and even carried over to printed hard copy, if users so desire to print them out afterward. In addition to highlighting, editorial comments and the like by users could also be added directly to the PDF documents, among other capabilities. The big hole in that idea is that Adobe Acrobat Professional is a Windows/MAC-only application that costs $449 US per license. That leaves out those of us who use Linux... and the team members that cannot afford that rather high license cost. It may be a nice-to-have feature, but due to cost and OS restrictions, it will probably remain a nice-to-have. C. Does anyone know what pdf functionality LO exports have? I have never tested it myself, no interest until now. If they have the desire functionality then there is no reason to use Acrobat, just export from LO. Personally I do not highlight books or e-texts. For e-texts I use formatting to highlight important items for the reader. If something you can using formating in the original to draw the readers/users attention to it. If I need to edit a pdf file, I can use pdf Edit in Linux and I assume there are Windows/Mac equivalents. -- Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 19:15, Gary Schnabl gschn...@swdetroit.com wrote: It may be a nice-to-have feature, but due to cost and OS restrictions, it will probably remain a nice-to-have. It costs the users absolutely NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, as long as any version of Adobe Reader that was released within the past several years is used for reading the Acrobat-enabled PDFs. Gary, I wasn't referring to users needing the software to read the PDF. I am fully aware that it's for producing the PDFs, not reading. I've been using PDF readers and PDF generation tools for more years than I'd like to admit :-P All that is required is just ONE LO PERSON with Adobe Acrobat Professional to convert any PDF, a task that takes merely a few seconds per PDF. BTW, this Adobe functionality is not really new, as it has been around for a number of years already. OK, who gets to cough up $450 for a license? i know I certainly cannot (I'd have a double whammy of the Acrobat license plus a Windows license), and I would not presume to request any member of the team to do so. If you personally have a license, then that's fine.. what happens if you decide you're not working on LO docs anymore due to other obligations? Or you're busy with your business clients during one publish cycle and can't take care of that final production step? My point was simple... the doc team needs to carefully consider any process tools or other suggestions that will cost money. Are they necessary? Is the gain something in demand from the audience or a neat feature that 6 people might use? Does the team gain enough to justify the cost? Does this take into account the team members using Linux? C. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On 6/23/2011 1:25 PM, planas wrote: On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 19:04 +0200, C wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 18:53, Gary Schnablgschn...@swdetroit.com wrote: Therefore, I suggest that every OOo/LO PDF file be so converted by Adobe Acrobat Professional afterward, prior to release so that OOo/LO users will have that extra functionality. What purpose do you want this functionality for? ... It seems foolish not to so enable them for the Comment and Review function, considering its ease to do so with no added cost or real time and effort... But for what purpose? Nino DUH! For any users wanting to add any highlighting and such--a thing typically done by millions of students and others over the past few decades on their printed material and books by (usually yellow-colored) magic markers. That highlighting functionality can also be done now electronically on PDFs (as it is commonly done on such converted PDFs) and even carried over to printed hard copy, if users so desire to print them out afterward. In addition to highlighting, editorial comments and the like by users could also be added directly to the PDF documents, among other capabilities. The big hole in that idea is that Adobe Acrobat Professional is a Windows/MAC-only application that costs $449 US per license. That leaves out those of us who use Linux... and the team members that cannot afford that rather high license cost. It may be a nice-to-have feature, but due to cost and OS restrictions, it will probably remain a nice-to-have. C. Does anyone know what pdf functionality LO exports have? I have never tested it myself, no interest until now. If they have the desire functionality then there is no reason to use Acrobat, just export from LO. Personally I do not highlight books or e-texts. For e-texts I use formatting to highlight important items for the reader. If something you can using formating in the original to draw the readers/users attention to it. If I need to edit a pdf file, I can use pdf Edit in Linux and I assume there are Windows/Mac equivalents. I never mentioned that any reader of LO PDFs would need to use Acrobat. Only one person at LO docs needs to employ Acrobat Professional--a brain-dead, simple, less-than-a-minute task--to enable any future users to employ Comment and Review on their PDFs. It's really that difficult a concept. It imparts useful functionality, even though you might not ever use it. Millions do... on their printed documents, including books and memos. Gary -- Gary Schnabl Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... Technical Editor forum http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On Thursday, 23. June 2011 18:53:12 Gary Schnabl wrote: On 6/23/2011 12:44 PM, Nino Novak wrote: Hi Gary, On Thursday, 23. June 2011 18:35:27 Gary Schnabl wrote: Therefore, I suggest that every OOo/LO PDF file be so converted by Adobe Acrobat Professional afterward, prior to release so that OOo/LO users will have that extra functionality. What purpose do you want this functionality for? ... It seems foolish not to so enable them for the Comment and Review function, considering its ease to do so with no added cost or real time and effort... But for what purpose? Nino DUH! For any users wanting to add any highlighting and such--a thing typically done by millions of students and others over the past few decades on their printed material and books by (usually yellow-colored) magic markers. Sorry, Gary, for my ignorance ;-) I myself have never had the idea to use PDF and highlight something therein, so I just did not know / could not imagine that this is done by so many people today. I remember how happy we have been some decades ago when PDF was invented and everybody could read a document with the same layout all over the world. So I just did not recognize the interactive capabilities of PDF today. That highlighting functionality can also be done now electronically on PDFs (as it is commonly done on such converted PDFs) and even carried over to printed hard copy, if users so desire to print them out afterward. In addition to highlighting, editorial comments and the like by users could also be added directly to the PDF documents, among other capabilities. From these facts I'd say: There is a grain of truth in your arguments ;-) But - however - I'd still say, if we provide a User Manual, then we do this for one reason: to enable more users to use our software in a better way. So primary goal is to attract/ enable/ empower /educate software users. If some of them really want to highlight the manual or enter comments, ok, maybe. But this is too far from the original purpose in my humble eyes. So it might be good to offer it as a service from someone who believes it makes the difference. But not for us, who are offering primarily the core services. Just like many Extensions are built by external persons. However, if they really provide a substantial surplus, then people will love them and call for integration into core. So the way to go is, at least for the moment, find someone to implement the functionality, offer it publicly, and wait :-) Nino -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On 6/23/2011 1:31 PM, C wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 19:15, Gary Schnablgschn...@swdetroit.com wrote: It may be a nice-to-have feature, but due to cost and OS restrictions, it will probably remain a nice-to-have. It costs the users absolutely NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, as long as any version of Adobe Reader that was released within the past several years is used for reading the Acrobat-enabled PDFs. Gary, I wasn't referring to users needing the software to read the PDF. I am fully aware that it's for producing the PDFs, not reading. I've been using PDF readers and PDF generation tools for more years than I'd like to admit :-P All that is required is just ONE LO PERSON with Adobe Acrobat Professional to convert any PDF, a task that takes merely a few seconds per PDF. BTW, this Adobe functionality is not really new, as it has been around for a number of years already. OK, who gets to cough up $450 for a license? i know I certainly cannot (I'd have a double whammy of the Acrobat license plus a Windows license), and I would not presume to request any member of the team to do so. If you personally have a license, then that's fine.. what happens if you decide you're not working on LO docs anymore due to other obligations? Or you're busy with your business clients during one publish cycle and can't take care of that final production step? My point was simple... the doc team needs to carefully consider any process tools or other suggestions that will cost money. Are they necessary? Is the gain something in demand from the audience or a neat feature that 6 people might use? Does the team gain enough to justify the cost? Does this take into account the team members using Linux? C. Not trying to be terribly offensive, but you are carrying on like a Luddite... I have Acrobat Pro, and I feel certain that other LO contributors do likewise. Gary -- Gary Schnabl Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... Technical Editor forum http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On 6/23/2011 1:44 PM, Nino Novak wrote: On Thursday, 23. June 2011 18:53:12 Gary Schnabl wrote: On 6/23/2011 12:44 PM, Nino Novak wrote: Hi Gary, On Thursday, 23. June 2011 18:35:27 Gary Schnabl wrote: Therefore, I suggest that every OOo/LO PDF file be so converted by Adobe Acrobat Professional afterward, prior to release so that OOo/LO users will have that extra functionality. What purpose do you want this functionality for? ... It seems foolish not to so enable them for the Comment and Review function, considering its ease to do so with no added cost or real time and effort... But for what purpose? Nino DUH! For any users wanting to add any highlighting and such--a thing typically done by millions of students and others over the past few decades on their printed material and books by (usually yellow-colored) magic markers. Sorry, Gary, for my ignorance ;-) I myself have never had the idea to use PDF and highlight something therein, so I just did not know / could not imagine that this is done by so many people today. I remember how happy we have been some decades ago when PDF was invented and everybody could read a document with the same layout all over the world. So I just did not recognize the interactive capabilities of PDF today. That highlighting functionality can also be done now electronically on PDFs (as it is commonly done on such converted PDFs) and even carried over to printed hard copy, if users so desire to print them out afterward. In addition to highlighting, editorial comments and the like by users could also be added directly to the PDF documents, among other capabilities. From these facts I'd say: There is a grain of truth in your arguments ;-) But - however - I'd still say, if we provide a User Manual, then we do this for one reason: to enable more users to use our software in a better way. So primary goal is to attract/ enable/ empower /educate software users. If some of them really want to highlight the manual or enter comments, ok, maybe. But this is too far from the original purpose in my humble eyes. So it might be good to offer it as a service from someone who believes it makes the difference. But not for us, who are offering primarily the core services. Just like many Extensions are built by external persons. However, if they really provide a substantial surplus, then people will love them and call for integration into core. So the way to go is, at least for the moment, find someone to implement the functionality, offer it publicly, and wait :-) Nino You can easily try it out. Try the Adobe website. They probably have such enabled PDFs for users to practice on. Otherwise, email me, and I will send you as an attachment an enabled Writer Guide PDF. Gary -- Gary Schnabl Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... Technical Editor forum http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On 6/23/2011 2:15 PM, planas wrote: Gary On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 13:43 -0400, Gary Schnabl wrote: On 6/23/2011 1:25 PM, planas wrote: On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 19:04 +0200, C wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 18:53, Gary Schnablgschn...@swdetroit.com wrote: Therefore, I suggest that every OOo/LO PDF file be so converted by Adobe Acrobat Professional afterward, prior to release so that OOo/LO users will have that extra functionality. What purpose do you want this functionality for? ... It seems foolish not to so enable them for the Comment and Review function, considering its ease to do so with no added cost or real time and effort... But for what purpose? Nino DUH! For any users wanting to add any highlighting and such--a thing typically done by millions of students and others over the past few decades on their printed material and books by (usually yellow-colored) magic markers. That highlighting functionality can also be done now electronically on PDFs (as it is commonly done on such converted PDFs) and even carried over to printed hard copy, if users so desire to print them out afterward. In addition to highlighting, editorial comments and the like by users could also be added directly to the PDF documents, among other capabilities. The big hole in that idea is that Adobe Acrobat Professional is a Windows/MAC-only application that costs $449 US per license. That leaves out those of us who use Linux... and the team members that cannot afford that rather high license cost. It may be a nice-to-have feature, but due to cost and OS restrictions, it will probably remain a nice-to-have. C. Does anyone know what pdf functionality LO exports have? I have never tested it myself, no interest until now. If they have the desire functionality then there is no reason to use Acrobat, just export from LO. Personally I do not highlight books or e-texts. For e-texts I use formatting to highlight important items for the reader. If something you can using formating in the original to draw the readers/users attention to it. If I need to edit a pdf file, I can use pdf Edit in Linux and I assume there are Windows/Mac equivalents. I never mentioned that any reader of LO PDFs would need to use Acrobat. Only one person at LO docs needs to employ Acrobat Professional--a brain-dead, simple, less-than-a-minute task--to enable any future users to employ Comment and Review on their PDFs. It's really that difficult a concept. It imparts useful functionality, even though you might not ever use it. Millions do... on their printed documents, including books and memos. Gary -- Gary Schnabl Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... Technical Editor forumhttp://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/ You are missing the point - I do not need Acrobat to generate a pdf file. You can do it easily in LO. The pdf will open in Reader with no problems. I just did it, accepting the default settings since was not sure what all the settings did. Actually this was the first time I had seen these settings and I suspect they setting for Reader/Acrobat. I would not be surprised it you picked the correct settings you would get the behavior you wanted. Having the Review and Comment functionality on a PDF (to be done with Adobe Reader) must be first imparted by Acrobat Pro to that file. Trust me... Gary -- Gary Schnabl Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... Technical Editor forum http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Gary On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 13:43 -0400, Gary Schnabl wrote: On 6/23/2011 1:25 PM, planas wrote: On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 19:04 +0200, C wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 18:53, Gary Schnablgschn...@swdetroit.com wrote: Therefore, I suggest that every OOo/LO PDF file be so converted by Adobe Acrobat Professional afterward, prior to release so that OOo/LO users will have that extra functionality. What purpose do you want this functionality for? ... It seems foolish not to so enable them for the Comment and Review function, considering its ease to do so with no added cost or real time and effort... But for what purpose? Nino DUH! For any users wanting to add any highlighting and such--a thing typically done by millions of students and others over the past few decades on their printed material and books by (usually yellow-colored) magic markers. That highlighting functionality can also be done now electronically on PDFs (as it is commonly done on such converted PDFs) and even carried over to printed hard copy, if users so desire to print them out afterward. In addition to highlighting, editorial comments and the like by users could also be added directly to the PDF documents, among other capabilities. The big hole in that idea is that Adobe Acrobat Professional is a Windows/MAC-only application that costs $449 US per license. That leaves out those of us who use Linux... and the team members that cannot afford that rather high license cost. It may be a nice-to-have feature, but due to cost and OS restrictions, it will probably remain a nice-to-have. C. Does anyone know what pdf functionality LO exports have? I have never tested it myself, no interest until now. If they have the desire functionality then there is no reason to use Acrobat, just export from LO. Personally I do not highlight books or e-texts. For e-texts I use formatting to highlight important items for the reader. If something you can using formating in the original to draw the readers/users attention to it. If I need to edit a pdf file, I can use pdf Edit in Linux and I assume there are Windows/Mac equivalents. I never mentioned that any reader of LO PDFs would need to use Acrobat. Only one person at LO docs needs to employ Acrobat Professional--a brain-dead, simple, less-than-a-minute task--to enable any future users to employ Comment and Review on their PDFs. It's really that difficult a concept. It imparts useful functionality, even though you might not ever use it. Millions do... on their printed documents, including books and memos. Gary -- Gary Schnabl Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... Technical Editor forum http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/ You are missing the point - I do not need Acrobat to generate a pdf file. You can do it easily in LO. The pdf will open in Reader with no problems. I just did it, accepting the default settings since was not sure what all the settings did. Actually this was the first time I had seen these settings and I suspect they setting for Reader/Acrobat. I would not be surprised it you picked the correct settings you would get the behavior you wanted. -- Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On 6/23/2011 1:44 PM, Nino Novak wrote: On Thursday, 23. June 2011 18:53:12 Gary Schnabl wrote: On 6/23/2011 12:44 PM, Nino Novak wrote: Hi Gary, On Thursday, 23. June 2011 18:35:27 Gary Schnabl wrote: Therefore, I suggest that every OOo/LO PDF file be so converted by Adobe Acrobat Professional afterward, prior to release so that OOo/LO users will have that extra functionality. What purpose do you want this functionality for? ... It seems foolish not to so enable them for the Comment and Review function, considering its ease to do so with no added cost or real time and effort... But for what purpose? Nino DUH! For any users wanting to add any highlighting and such--a thing typically done by millions of students and others over the past few decades on their printed material and books by (usually yellow-colored) magic markers. Sorry, Gary, for my ignorance ;-) I myself have never had the idea to use PDF and highlight something therein, so I just did not know / could not imagine that this is done by so many people today. I remember how happy we have been some decades ago when PDF was invented and everybody could read a document with the same layout all over the world. So I just did not recognize the interactive capabilities of PDF today. That highlighting functionality can also be done now electronically on PDFs (as it is commonly done on such converted PDFs) and even carried over to printed hard copy, if users so desire to print them out afterward. In addition to highlighting, editorial comments and the like by users could also be added directly to the PDF documents, among other capabilities. From these facts I'd say: There is a grain of truth in your arguments ;-) But - however - I'd still say, if we provide a User Manual, then we do this for one reason: to enable more users to use our software in a better way. So primary goal is to attract/ enable/ empower /educate software users. If some of them really want to highlight the manual or enter comments, ok, maybe. But this is too far from the original purpose in my humble eyes. So it might be good to offer it as a service from someone who believes it makes the difference. But not for us, who are offering primarily the core services. Just like many Extensions are built by external persons. However, if they really provide a substantial surplus, then people will love them and call for integration into core. So the way to go is, at least for the moment, find someone to implement the functionality, offer it publicly, and wait :-) Nino GM (whose HQ is five miles from here...) sells vehicles that they build and equip some of them with options, some (most?) of which they do not manufacture themselves. Most buyers prefer having options being available (especially if they are thrown it at no extra cost), even though they may not use them, right away. OnStar is one of them that was used so much that GM bought the company that made it. Gary -- Gary Schnabl Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... Technical Editor forum http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On Thursday, 23. June 2011 19:50:49 Gary Schnabl wrote: On 6/23/2011 1:44 PM, Nino Novak wrote: On Thursday, 23. June 2011 18:53:12 Gary Schnabl wrote: On 6/23/2011 12:44 PM, Nino Novak wrote: Hi Gary, On Thursday, 23. June 2011 18:35:27 Gary Schnabl wrote: Therefore, I suggest that every OOo/LO PDF file be so converted by Adobe Acrobat Professional afterward, prior to release so that OOo/LO users will have that extra functionality. What purpose do you want this functionality for? ... It seems foolish not to so enable them for the Comment and Review function, considering its ease to do so with no added cost or real time and effort... But for what purpose? Nino DUH! For any users wanting to add any highlighting and such--a thing typically done by millions of students and others over the past few decades on their printed material and books by (usually yellow-colored) magic markers. Sorry, Gary, for my ignorance ;-) I myself have never had the idea to use PDF and highlight something therein, so I just did not know / could not imagine that this is done by so many people today. I remember how happy we have been some decades ago when PDF was invented and everybody could read a document with the same layout all over the world. So I just did not recognize the interactive capabilities of PDF today. That highlighting functionality can also be done now electronically on PDFs (as it is commonly done on such converted PDFs) and even carried over to printed hard copy, if users so desire to print them out afterward. In addition to highlighting, editorial comments and the like by users could also be added directly to the PDF documents, among other capabilities. From these facts I'd say: There is a grain of truth in your arguments ;-) But - however - I'd still say, if we provide a User Manual, then we do this for one reason: to enable more users to use our software in a better way. So primary goal is to attract/ enable/ empower /educate software users. If some of them really want to highlight the manual or enter comments, ok, maybe. But this is too far from the original purpose in my humble eyes. So it might be good to offer it as a service from someone who believes it makes the difference. But not for us, who are offering primarily the core services. Just like many Extensions are built by external persons. However, if they really provide a substantial surplus, then people will love them and call for integration into core. So the way to go is, at least for the moment, find someone to implement the functionality, offer it publicly, and wait :-) Nino You can easily try it out. Try the Adobe website. They probably have such enabled PDFs for users to practice on. Otherwise, email me, and I will send you as an attachment an enabled Writer Guide PDF. Thanks for the offer :) However, this will have to wait a bit because at the moment my brain is too full that I can't think about even more things to busy myself with. Nino -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Hi, On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM, planas jsloz...@gmail.com wrote: Most places that have any kind of leaflet, posters or documentation to download want to have some control over the way it looks. Sadly there is not an adequate Open Document Format so people use PDF. Since PDF is so widely used it forces everyone to use it. I don't think we can make a stand against that right now. We have to use PDF or else marginalise ourselves. Most places that do have pdfs to download also have a button to the Adobe site to download their latest reader (for free) in case people can't read pdfs even though that is desperately unlikely. I think we should have a similar button but perhaps we could choose someone other than Adobe? True most people are conditioned to look a pdf file. But one save LO documents with a password which maintains version/document control. This feature is (also in MSO) is rarely used, I think because most people are not aware of it. The Acrobat Reader is a marketing tool for Adobe to make pdf popular and improve sales of the Acrobat. There are currently several free readers for Linux and Windows. Some are considered better than Reader itself. Maybe instead of link to Adobe we have a link, if possible, to a FOSS pdf reader. People can still read the pdf and we promote some sister projects. What some have done to get around needing Acrobat to prepare pdf's is use a suite like LO that can export the document as a pdf. Any pdf generated we need can be done in LO and we state that on the page. Any time we revise the document we do it using LO. I have been aware of this feature in OOo/SO for many years when MSO did not have it. I dunno, I may be conditioned, but I tend to look on PDF as a pretty generic, independent format these days. I realise that Adobe owns the copyright on PDF, but I have a third-party reader on my Linux system, and such readers are/have been available for every/almost every computing platform. So I don't tend to take much account of the political implications, I just see the convenience/simplicity aspect... So I see PDF as one very practical final publication medium. ODF's .odt is the format for storing work in progress, although it can perfectly well be used for viewing documentation, provided that the user has LibO or another ODF-compatible tool installed. It allows us to do perfectly adequate version tracking and team collaboration. For instance, if we could get ODF integrated more into Alfresco, we'd have a pretty cool tool. That's something I'll be investigating/agitating for. Practically-speaking, I reckon we'd be a bit short-handed to produce HTML publications, and I don't see a *screaming* need for it. But if somone disagrees and wants to put the time in to do the work, then please dig out and go ahead - I'm sure we'll give you whatever support we can. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 14:18 -0400, Gary Schnabl wrote: Having the Review and Comment functionality on a PDF (to be done with Adobe Reader) must be first imparted by Acrobat Pro to that file. Trust me... Gary is correct on this point. As for doing that, Gary states elsewhere that it's a quick and easy process for anyone who has Acrobat Pro. That is also correct. I would put this in the bucket of if Gary (or some other member of the team who already has Acrobat Pro) wants to do this step for each of our PDFs, then let them do it -- except for the following reservations: * If someone starts doing this, users will have an expectation that all the LO user guide PDFs will have this functionality. * If only 1 or 2 people are doing this, it puts them on the critical path for publishing PDFs that meet the expectations mentioned above and could cause a bottleneck, especially if the person were unavailable for any reason. BTW, I have Acrobat Pro, but I am not offering to do what Gary suggests because it is on a (Windows) machine that I rarely turn on, so setting the Review and Comment switch on a PDF is a much more time-consuming effort which I might do only once a week, if that often. --Jean -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On Thursday, 23. June 2011 20:29:38 Gary Schnabl wrote: On 6/23/2011 1:44 PM, Nino Novak wrote: On Thursday, 23. June 2011 18:53:12 Gary Schnabl wrote: On 6/23/2011 12:44 PM, Nino Novak wrote: Hi Gary, On Thursday, 23. June 2011 18:35:27 Gary Schnabl wrote: Therefore, I suggest that every OOo/LO PDF file be so converted by Adobe Acrobat Professional afterward, prior to release so that OOo/LO users will have that extra functionality. What purpose do you want this functionality for? ... It seems foolish not to so enable them for the Comment and Review function, considering its ease to do so with no added cost or real time and effort... But for what purpose? Nino DUH! For any users wanting to add any highlighting and such--a thing typically done by millions of students and others over the past few decades on their printed material and books by (usually yellow-colored) magic markers. Sorry, Gary, for my ignorance ;-) I myself have never had the idea to use PDF and highlight something therein, so I just did not know / could not imagine that this is done by so many people today. I remember how happy we have been some decades ago when PDF was invented and everybody could read a document with the same layout all over the world. So I just did not recognize the interactive capabilities of PDF today. That highlighting functionality can also be done now electronically on PDFs (as it is commonly done on such converted PDFs) and even carried over to printed hard copy, if users so desire to print them out afterward. In addition to highlighting, editorial comments and the like by users could also be added directly to the PDF documents, among other capabilities. From these facts I'd say: There is a grain of truth in your arguments ;-) But - however - I'd still say, if we provide a User Manual, then we do this for one reason: to enable more users to use our software in a better way. So primary goal is to attract/ enable/ empower /educate software users. If some of them really want to highlight the manual or enter comments, ok, maybe. But this is too far from the original purpose in my humble eyes. So it might be good to offer it as a service from someone who believes it makes the difference. But not for us, who are offering primarily the core services. Just like many Extensions are built by external persons. However, if they really provide a substantial surplus, then people will love them and call for integration into core. So the way to go is, at least for the moment, find someone to implement the functionality, offer it publicly, and wait :-) Nino GM (whose HQ is five miles from here...) sells vehicles that they build and equip some of them with options, some (most?) of which they do not manufacture themselves. Most buyers prefer having options being available (especially if they are thrown it at no extra cost), even though they may not use them, right away. OnStar is one of them that was used so much that GM bought the company that made it. sure ;-) But we are not GM, however. If we could take money and initiate a project, this would be fine. But all we can do is be so attractive that volunteers deliberately spring in and do the necessary work. So while GM has to pay regard mainly to the external market, we have to sell our ideas even to our internal fellows. This works partly by sparking enthusiasm in their hearts. But it works better by just doing it oneself and giving the result back to the community (if it is successfull, of course). So finally, why don't you just do it yourself? Nino -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On 6/23/2011 5:08 PM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote: On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 14:18 -0400, Gary Schnabl wrote: Having the Review and Comment functionality on a PDF (to be done with Adobe Reader) must be first imparted by Acrobat Pro to that file. Trust me... Gary is correct on this point. As for doing that, Gary states elsewhere that it's a quick and easy process for anyone who has Acrobat Pro. That is also correct. I would put this in the bucket of if Gary (or some other member of the team who already has Acrobat Pro) wants to do this step for each of our PDFs, then let them do it -- except for the following reservations: * If someone starts doing this, users will have an expectation that all the LO user guide PDFs will have this functionality. * If only 1 or 2 people are doing this, it puts them on the critical path for publishing PDFs that meet the expectations mentioned above and could cause a bottleneck, especially if the person were unavailable for any reason. BTW, I have Acrobat Pro, but I am not offering to do what Gary suggests because it is on a (Windows) machine that I rarely turn on, so setting the Review and Comment switch on a PDF is a much more time-consuming effort which I might do only once a week, if that often. --Jean The number of PDFs in LO's library is very finite; plus, very few new PDFs are generated on a consistent basis. Converting them all could effortlessly be done in very short order. Another thing that is really needed is accurate, well-written exposition for performing any Review and Comment (in this case, although that could also be done in other places), in addition to any other items that were not adequately covered (or, possibly covered in error...) in the existing user guides, to date. For instance, I was redoing bits of the LO template. I altered the very first point--missing, in that case: for users of the templates to see to it that they already have the needed typeface (Liberation) installed so that its fonts are already installed before authoring or editing anything, lest the operating system might substitute another font for any missing font--thus altering the format in a manner that could be very difficult to detect. That point should have been made clear earlier, so I rewrote that part. There are some other items that need redoing in the template. I will post what I have redone so far, so anybody could comment on my changes, make their own changes, among others. Gary -- Gary Schnabl Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... Technical Editor forum http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
[applauds] From: John Cleland j...@john-cleland.co.uk To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Fri, 24 June, 2011 0:30:23 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides Hi I used LibO 3.3 to produce a PDF file on windows 7. Opening the PDF using Acrobat X on windows 7 and you are able to use both highlights and comments. The review parts also seem enabled. Highlights and comments definitely save. It maybe that this is possible already without Acrobat Pro. Regards John -Original Message- From: Jean Hollis Weber Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 10:08 PM To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 14:18 -0400, Gary Schnabl wrote: Having the Review and Comment functionality on a PDF (to be done with Adobe Reader) must be first imparted by Acrobat Pro to that file. Trust me... Gary is correct on this point. As for doing that, Gary states elsewhere that it's a quick and easy process for anyone who has Acrobat Pro. That is also correct. I would put this in the bucket of if Gary (or some other member of the team who already has Acrobat Pro) wants to do this step for each of our PDFs, then let them do it -- except for the following reservations: * If someone starts doing this, users will have an expectation that all the LO user guide PDFs will have this functionality. * If only 1 or 2 people are doing this, it puts them on the critical path for publishing PDFs that meet the expectations mentioned above and could cause a bottleneck, especially if the person were unavailable for any reason. BTW, I have Acrobat Pro, but I am not offering to do what Gary suggests because it is on a (Windows) machine that I rarely turn on, so setting the Review and Comment switch on a PDF is a much more time-consuming effort which I might do only once a week, if that often. --Jean -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
It's pretty after midnight local time here, so a last answer for today... On Friday, 24. June 2011 01:00:38 Gary Schnabl wrote: On 6/23/2011 5:16 PM, Nino Novak wrote: ... [Offering enhanced PDF Manuals] So finally, why don't you just do it yourself? Duh! I did that--while I was making my lunch today: downloaded the Writer UG PDF from the LO site, enabled it with Acrobat, and test ran it with Adobe Reader. Time spent: Less than ten minutes, including time for posting emails, cooking, eating, a phone call, etc. No, I meant, why don't you offer the service yourself? You did one conversion, ok - but for the service you need to - explore legal issues - set up a work flow - market the enhanced version - offer them on a appropriate website - ensure at least as well es possible that the service will be continued when you are ill, unwilling or whatever ... (might be I'm overseeing parts, so pls bare with me) So, there's much more work to do than to just prototypically show that it's possible. My point is some LO personnel should put aside any biases with regard to restrictive tendencies to avoid using proprietary software and the like. I realize that open-source exclusivity is nearly akin to be like a religion, for a few... But a major goal of Free + Open Source Software is to give people more personal freedom. So why do you think they should put aside biases - if they just use their freedom they are offered by FLOSS philosphy. Here, they are allowed to use whatever tool they want, so - let them enjoy doing so. You might be right that indeed some people behave kind of rather fundamentalistic. But - that's their choice. If you want them to behave differently the only thing is to argue and sell them your ideas. And indeed, that's what you are doing, so if nobody bites into the lure, it might be the wrong moment, not enough persuasing arguments, the wrong people, or I don't know what else. Try again later? Choose a different audience? Do it yourself? (I mean the whole thing, not just showing that it works in principle) Late in my work career, I spent a few years teaching at both public and private K-12 schools in metro Detroit. Many of the brighter, college-oriented kids would, on their own, employ their magic markers for highlighting items in their books or other printed documents, much the same that we did decades earlier--both at school and afterward. Highlighting is actually very common; otherwise firms would not sell billions of Sharpies and the like. Ok, so your experience predestinates you to speak in favor of offering enhanced PDF, but still you have to persuade people here to follow your argumentation. But now, PDF editing/reviewing functionality can be effortlessly imparted to any and all PDFs, once enabled by a simple, one-time conversion by Acrobat for use for anybody with the ubiquitous Adobe Reader afterward. Yes, I see the point that it might be an - let's say - interesting possibility. But speaking fo myself personnaly, I'm contributing to this project here just because I enjoy doing things I love and decide myself to do. So I might have catched up with your idea and helping you to propagate it. But alas, I haven't. For whatever reason - I just haven't. It's not attractive enough for me to put energy into it. Not even a small amount (as testing the enhanced PDF). This is absolutely not meant to offend you or to discredit your opinion or intention - in no way. But it is just not attractive enough for me to catch fire. At least not at the moment. And, obviously it did not attract many other people either. Now (if you did not receive tens of private mails speaking in favor of your idea) I'd say, well - did not work this time, with this audience, with these arguments - so let's try later. Or a slightly different idea. Or with new arguments. Or what else. But it's up to you, how you decide. That's freedom :-) Nino definitely falling asleep in a few moments ;-) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
You need not do anything for Commenting and Analysis as long as you are employing Acrobat Pro--any version going back to either 6 or 7. However, in order to enable a vanilla PDF for other users employing Adobe Reader, open the desired PDF and go to the Comments menu (Comments Enable for Commenting and Analysis in Adobe Reader--its new nomenclature). You will be prompted to overwrite the PDF or to employ Save as for creating a new PDF. That is all that is needed to convert the PDFs... BTW, you too can easily convert the LO PDFs. So, now there are at least three of us who can. There are probably lots of others, too. Gary On 6/23/2011 7:30 PM, John Cleland wrote: Hi I used LibO 3.3 to produce a PDF file on windows 7. Opening the PDF using Acrobat X on windows 7 and you are able to use both highlights and comments. The review parts also seem enabled. Highlights and comments definitely save. It maybe that this is possible already without Acrobat Pro. Regards John -Original Message- From: Jean Hollis Weber Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 10:08 PM To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 14:18 -0400, Gary Schnabl wrote: Having the Review and Comment functionality on a PDF (to be done with Adobe Reader) must be first imparted by Acrobat Pro to that file. Trust me... Gary is correct on this point. As for doing that, Gary states elsewhere that it's a quick and easy process for anyone who has Acrobat Pro. That is also correct. I would put this in the bucket of if Gary (or some other member of the team who already has Acrobat Pro) wants to do this step for each of our PDFs, then let them do it -- except for the following reservations: * If someone starts doing this, users will have an expectation that all the LO user guide PDFs will have this functionality. * If only 1 or 2 people are doing this, it puts them on the critical path for publishing PDFs that meet the expectations mentioned above and could cause a bottleneck, especially if the person were unavailable for any reason. BTW, I have Acrobat Pro, but I am not offering to do what Gary suggests because it is on a (Windows) machine that I rarely turn on, so setting the Review and Comment switch on a PDF is a much more time-consuming effort which I might do only once a week, if that often. --Jean -- Gary Schnabl Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... Technical Editor forum http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
John, On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 00:30 +0100, John Cleland wrote: Hi I used LibO 3.3 to produce a PDF file on windows 7. Opening the PDF using Acrobat X on windows 7 and you are able to use both highlights and comments. The review parts also seem enabled. Highlights and comments definitely save. It maybe that this is possible already without Acrobat Pro. Regards John -Original Message- From: Jean Hollis Weber Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 10:08 PM To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 14:18 -0400, Gary Schnabl wrote: Having the Review and Comment functionality on a PDF (to be done with Adobe Reader) must be first imparted by Acrobat Pro to that file. Trust me... Gary is correct on this point. As for doing that, Gary states elsewhere that it's a quick and easy process for anyone who has Acrobat Pro. That is also correct. I would put this in the bucket of if Gary (or some other member of the team who already has Acrobat Pro) wants to do this step for each of our PDFs, then let them do it -- except for the following reservations: * If someone starts doing this, users will have an expectation that all the LO user guide PDFs will have this functionality. * If only 1 or 2 people are doing this, it puts them on the critical path for publishing PDFs that meet the expectations mentioned above and could cause a bottleneck, especially if the person were unavailable for any reason. BTW, I have Acrobat Pro, but I am not offering to do what Gary suggests because it is on a (Windows) machine that I rarely turn on, so setting the Review and Comment switch on a PDF is a much more time-consuming effort which I might do only once a week, if that often. --Jean -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted Did use any settings other than default ones when saved the pdf? If so, please advise because this may be a good tip to tell people. If you can produce a pdf file with virtually all the functionality a user would need why would you use Adobe not save the money? I would use the less expensive option that is available. -- Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On Wed, 2011-06-22, Gary Schnabl wrote about DocBook. My view, which I have expressed on several occasions: Using DocBook files (or anything other than ODT files) as source documents for our user guides would be counter-productive, for two main reasons: (1) It would exclude the vast majority of potential contributors to the LibO documentation, who won't want to have to obtain and learn to use a new tool; most contributors, in my experience, have enough difficulty learning how to use Writer well. (2) Keeping our source docs in anything other than ODTs created using our own product is very, very bad publicity for our product. Related reasons are: by using the product to produce documentation, our contributors are more likely to learn how to use that product better; and they may find bugs or identify places where the product could be enhanced, thus assisting the developers. I'm fine with discussing tools for producing multiple outputs (HTML, for example) from our source ODT files. Individual members of the team who are familiar with those tools can work from the source ODTs, but most contributors would not need to use or understand them. Some other forms of user docs can be produced, delivered, and maintained on the wiki: things like tips and short how-tos. But not the user guides. Seriously. --Jean -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On Wed, 2011-06-22, Gary Schnabl wrote about DocBook. My view, which I have expressed on several occasions: Using DocBook files (or anything other than ODT files) as source documents for our user guides would be counter-productive, for two main reasons: (1) It would exclude the vast majority of potential contributors to the LibO documentation, who won't want to have to obtain and learn to use a new tool; most contributors, in my experience, have enough difficulty learning how to use Writer well. (2) Keeping our source docs in anything other than ODTs created using our own product is very, very bad publicity for our product. Related reasons are: by using the product to produce documentation, our contributors are more likely to learn how to use that product better; and they may find bugs or identify places where the product could be enhanced, thus assisting the developers. I'm fine with discussing tools for producing multiple outputs (HTML, for example) from our source ODT files. Individual members of the team who are familiar with those tools can work from the source ODTs, but most contributors would not need to use or understand them. Some other forms of user docs can be produced, delivered, and maintained on the wiki: things like tips and short how-tos. But not the user guides. Seriously. --Jean I wrote about a DocBook DTD file in response to Nino's bringing it up, but nowhere in this thread did I advocate using it . A careful read of my post would lead one to believe that I was discouraging the use of it. So, you needed to address the DocBook issue to Nino, not me... Seriously. Gary (Nino said: An ODT uses XML, (just like e.g. DocBook) so direct HTML conversion should be possible with just a DTD, shouldn't it?) -- Gary Schnabl Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... Technical Editor forum http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On Wednesday, 22. June 2011 09:15:52 Gary Schnabl wrote: A DTD (say, a DocBook 4.5 DTD--the last normative version, 03 Oct 2006) only deals with document structure--not formatting a document. So, you would have to employ something else for formatting purposes, much like CSS formats XHTML code. [lots of technical stuff snipped] (Sorry, I'm really not an expert here, I just wanted to share the idea.) Gary, my point was not to *use* DocBook but to take ODT and provide export filters to generate HTML *like* DocBook does. OOo really never did much with its so-called DocBook XML. But - at least from a non-expert view like mine - DocBook seems to be XML with chapters, paragraphs and so on, and ODT is XML with chapters, paragraphs and so on. So at least in theory they should be mutually convertable, shouldn't they? So hypothetically, the DocBook-to-HTML converter should be easliy tweakable to take ODT as input. Ok, by an advanced developer ;-) Nino -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On Wed, 2011-06-22, Gary Schnabl wrote: I wrote about a DocBook DTD file in response to Nino's bringing it up, but nowhere in this thread did I advocate using it . A careful read of my post would lead one to believe that I was discouraging the use of it. So, you needed to address the DocBook issue to Nino, not me... Nino clearly said he thinks the source should be ODT, so I have no problem with his comments about conversion tools. Your note sounded to me like you were advocating DocBook, as you have done on several occasions in the past, not discouraging the use of it. Apparently I did't read your note carefully enough. Sorry. --Jean -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On Wednesday, 22. June 2011 09:15:52 Gary Schnabl wrote: A DTD (say, a DocBook 4.5 DTD--the last normative version, 03 Oct 2006) only deals with document structure--not formatting a document. So, you would have to employ something else for formatting purposes, much like CSS formats XHTML code. [lots of technical stuff snipped] (Sorry, I'm really not an expert here, I just wanted to share the idea.) Gary, my point was not to *use* DocBook but to take ODT and provide export filters to generate HTML *like* DocBook does. OOo really never did much with its so-called DocBook XML. But - at least from a non-expert view like mine - DocBook seems to be XML with chapters, paragraphs and so on, and ODT is XML with chapters, paragraphs and so on. So at least in theory they should be mutually convertable, shouldn't they? So hypothetically, the DocBook-to-HTML converter should be easliy tweakable to take ODT as input. Ok, by an advanced developer ;-) Nino DocBook XML publishing might be done in a well-staffed publishing house. However, OOo or LO just does not possess neither the manpower, the time, nor the expertise to do that. As I said, a DTD file merely provides rules for structuring a document, but does not format it. Somebody has to create a formatting file and also a template based upon the marriage between DTD and the formatting file. It is not an easy, straightforward task. Doing some small DocBook (XML) programming and formatting with very simple files would help one to grasp the work that needs to be done, though. For that, confer the Sagehill link for documentation on how to go about that. It would be good training in the event somebody wanted to ever go that route. Personally, if I were to go the DocBook XML route, I would employ a WYSIWYG app like FrameMaker instead of apps using a command line and such. I do not working all that hard. In any event, it is John who wanted to take on the HTML-creation task. He will soon find out that today, one or more CSS files does the XHTML formatting. (I prefer viewing PDFs over most XHTML, amyway.) As I mentioned before, I will enable the LO Writer Guide PDF for Adobe Reader markup. That would be a good markup exercise for anybody at LO who might want to copyedit it--or proofread it, assuming it is finished. And playing with Comment and Review (analysis) is also fun to do. I will upload that enabled PDF in a day or two. Gary -- Gary Schnabl Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... Technical Editor forum http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Hi When checking the PDF version of the Calc guide I found it hard, compared to html to move around the document. I would like to propose that an HTML version is produced. I would be happy to undertake the work. I am not sure what open source html producers/editors are available, but will do some research into what is available. Does anyone else think this is a good/bad idea. Regards John Cleland If you plan to do what you plan, try using a WYSIWYG application like MS Expression (formerly FrontPage) or Adobe's DreamWeaver. Microsoft has such a free deal with its WebSpark program. You get the use of MS Visual Studio 10 and the Expression suite to use for three years for nothing--and get to keep them afterward: http://www.microsoft.com/web/websitespark/ Gary -- Gary Schnabl Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... Technical Editor forum http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On 6/22/2011 5:42 AM, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) It is interesting to hear about free stuff from MS. One always wonders what tricks, caveats, lock-ins and what traps are being sprung. Regards from Tom :) Use a little of this, a little of that... I am not a wide-eyed zealot, forcing myself to stick with only open-source applications. Being an electrical and computer engineer, I would prefer to use the tools that work the best--even if I have to pay for them, sometimes. (I do not use any bootleg software.) Fortunately, four years ago, as an inactive beta-tester, MS gave me afterward free copies of Vista Ultimate and MS Office Professional Plus 2007, plus a few other of their apps for attending their market launch/seminar--a five-mile bus ride away. Motorola gave me a free copy of FrameMaker when I was a technical editor for them six years ago. So, I cannot complain. I even buy legal versions of proprietary software on eBay or from the vendors--right after a new version is released. 80% discounts are common. Sometimes, they give away slightly dated versions for free. Bargains can usually be found. Gary Hi When checking the PDF version of the Calc guide I found it hard, compared to html to move around the document. I would like to propose that an HTML version is produced. I would be happy to undertake the work. I am not sure what open source html producers/editors are available, but will do some research into what is available. Does anyone else think this is a good/bad idea. Regards John Cleland If you plan to do what you plan, try using a WYSIWYG application like MS Expression (formerly FrontPage) or Adobe's DreamWeaver. Microsoft has such a free deal with its WebSpark program. You get the use of MS Visual Studio 10 and the Expression suite to use for three years for nothing--and get to keep them afterward: http://www.microsoft.com/web/websitespark/ Gary -- Gary Schnabl Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... Technical Editor forum http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
John, On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 21:49 +0100, John Cleland wrote: Hi When checking the PDF version of the Calc guide I found it hard, compared to html to move around the document. I would like to propose that an HTML version is produced. I would be happy to undertake the work. I am not sure what open source html producers/editors are available, but will do some research into what is available. Does anyone else think this is a good/bad idea. Regards John Cleland If you use Linux, you can try Bluefish Editor for an html producer/editor. Their website is http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/index.html and they have Windows and Mac versions available. -- Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 21:49 +0100, John Cleland wrote: When checking the PDF version of the Calc guide I found it hard, compared to html to move around the document. I would like to propose that an HTML version is produced. I would be happy to undertake the work. I am not sure what open source html producers/editors are available, but will do some research into what is available. Does anyone else think this is a good/bad idea. The following questions are to help me get a better idea of exactly what you are proposing. Are you proposing to do this for all the guides, or just the Calc Guide? Where do you propose to put the HTML version? Why HTML and not wiki? How do you propose to keep the HTML version up to date? BTW, my general view is that if someone has an idea, they should just run with it. I do that all the time. ;-) --Jean -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
Hi :) I think the ODF guides do most of what you want from html ones. The pdfs are good but the odfs are more flexible. Regards from Tom :) From: John Cleland j...@john-cleland.co.uk To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Tue, 21 June, 2011 23:32:17 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides Hi Jean -Original Message- From: Jean Hollis Weber Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:21 PM To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 21:49 +0100, John Cleland wrote: When checking the PDF version of the Calc guide I found it hard, compared to html to move around the document. I would like to propose that an HTML version is produced. I would be happy to undertake the work. I am not sure what open source html producers/editors are available, but will do some research into what is available. Does anyone else think this is a good/bad idea. The following questions are to help me get a better idea of exactly what you are proposing. Are you proposing to do this for all the guides, or just the Calc Guide? I am proposing to do this for all guides Where do you propose to put the HTML version? Somewhere on the documentation Website Why HTML and not wiki? I envisage an HTML page that looks similar to a .chm file where the contents are down the left and the text on the right. How do you propose to keep the HTML version up to date? Not thought about this, I think the only way would probably be manually BTW, my general view is that if someone has an idea, they should just run with it. I do that all the time. ;-) --Jean I think HTML is so much easier than a PDF to use that it is worth looking at -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides
On 6/21/2011 6:32 PM, John Cleland wrote: Hi Jean -Original Message- From: Jean Hollis Weber Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:21 PM To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 21:49 +0100, John Cleland wrote: When checking the PDF version of the Calc guide I found it hard, compared to html to move around the document. I would like to propose that an HTML version is produced. I would be happy to undertake the work. I am not sure what open source html producers/editors are available, but will do some research into what is available. Does anyone else think this is a good/bad idea. The following questions are to help me get a better idea of exactly what you are proposing. Are you proposing to do this for all the guides, or just the Calc Guide? I am proposing to do this for all guides Where do you propose to put the HTML version? Somewhere on the documentation Website Why HTML and not wiki? I envisage an HTML page that looks similar to a .chm file where the contents are down the left and the text on the right. How do you propose to keep the HTML version up to date? Not thought about this, I think the only way would probably be manually BTW, my general view is that if someone has an idea, they should just run with it. I do that all the time. ;-) --Jean I think HTML is so much easier than a PDF to use that it is worth looking at The major drawback with (X)HTML is that each browser developer will render the code somewhat differently. Display sizes and resolutions vary all across the board among disparate users, also. Liquid-CSS layouts can assist with the variable display-size problem, though. OTOH, PDF files are better standardized than (X)HTML files, and a PDF can be set up with very high-quality layouts that print very well, whereas (X)HTML files are not so hot with their graphics. In addition, PDFs are fairly easy to resize when displayed and to navigate from page to page, if that is desired. Perhaps, you might save yourself a lot of time, effort, and grief instead by learning how to use PDFs more effectively. Gary -- Gary Schnabl Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is... Technical Editor forum http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
