INTEROPERABILITY: Initial PLugfest Test Collection

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

A set of initial, raw tests was provided for review, clarification, and 
updating at the ODF Plugfest that started today in The Netherlands.

I asked permission to share this information, at the end, below, with the 
Apache OpenOffice developers list, with the following observations:

  "I am more interested in the tests than the results for other projects.
   There is also a desire to foster interoperability in our mutual support
   for ODF and having the calibration your tests provide is informative.  

  "We can capture the essence of the tests and create bug reports as
   appropriate for AOO.  We can also provide any responses or refined tests
   that may arise.  

  "It would be great were this a continuing activity and not confined to this
   week's Plugfest.  You can count on cooperation of the Apache OpenOffice 
   project [easy for orcmid to say].  I am confident other ODF-supporting 
   projects are also eager to support any initiative you take in this useful 
   area."

The response I received provided more information about the tests,

  "The tests are being developed on gitlab. The main respository is at 
   https://gitlab.com/odfplugfest/odfautotests
   There is a branch which is created in preparation of the plugfest by 
   Ben Martin (monkeyiq) at   https://gitlab.com/monkeyiq/odfautotests
   This branch will be cleaned up and merged into the main branch after 
   the plugfest.

  "For a contuous plugfest we'd need more thought. [...]

  "Of course you have permission to pass on the message, but please note
   that the urls are temporary and the results raw. Many applications 
   did not get tested.  All input was only ODF 1.2 (some output was 1.1). 
   And some results are present due to server glitches. So some cleanup and 
   especially *interpretation* of the results is needed.

  "What you can certainly do right now is the build the tester (ant jar)
   and run it.
   


  "Cheers,
   Jos"



-Original Message-
From: Plugtest ... On Behalf Of Jos van den Oever
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 02:29
To: plugtest
Subject: [ODFPlugtest] preliminary test results

[ ...  IMPORTANT - LINKS BELOW ARE TEMPORARY AND RESULTS RAW AND TENTATIVE ... ]

These links are temporary:
http://www.vandenoever.info/tmp/2015/sep/text-properties-results/report.html
http://www.vandenoever.info/tmp/2015/sep/paragraph-properties-results/report.html
http://www.vandenoever.info/tmp/2015/sep/list-level-properties/report.html
http://www.vandenoever.info/tmp/2015/sep/header-footer-properties/report.html
http://www.vandenoever.info/tmp/2015/sep/table-properties/report.html
http://www.vandenoever.info/tmp/2015/sep/graphic-properties/report.html

Please note that the current tests are limited to styling in text documents. 
This is a large topic and the one for which we have tests at the 
moment. Some implementations might do poorly in this particular set of tests, 
but be prefectly fine in other, future, tests.

Short explanation of the reports:

Each test tests just data fidelity: is the style attribute that goes in, saved 
back?
The tests use named styles. Sometimes a style can seem fine visually, while the 
named style has not retained the right information. That is considered a 
failed test.
Each test has the ingoing odt linked, as well as the outgoing odt files. There 
is usually also a pdf available. content.xml and styles.xml are also linked 
from each test.

[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

[Larry Gusaas]

On 2015-09-15, 5:17 PM John D'Orazio wrote:

Well actually the case of the wikipedia article is different, because the
adjective that is used for the project whether "dormant" or "moribund" is
not in fact actually being referred to the Apache project  but to the
pre-Apache project.


No. It is Apache OpenOffice that is being called "moribund".
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice


The Apache project is indicated as being a derivative
project, and has been given a separate page as such. T


No. The Apache OpenOffice page states:
"Apache OpenOffice (AOO) is an open-source office productivity software suite. It is a 
successor project of OpenOffice.org "



he issue there is
that one or two users (who happen to also be moderators) are very set on
considering the Apache project a different project, and not the "successor"
of the Oracle project. So it's actually the Oracle project that is being
called dormant.


Wrong. Check the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice

--
_

Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - 
Edgard Varese



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

[John D'Orazio]

Well actually the case of the wikipedia article is different, because the
adjective that is used for the project whether "dormant" or "moribund" is
not in fact actually being referred to the Apache project  but to the
pre-Apache project. The Apache project is indicated as being a derivative
project, and has been given a separate page as such. The issue there is
that one or two users (who happen to also be moderators) are very set on
considering the Apache project a different project, and not the "successor"
of the Oracle project. So it's actually the Oracle project that is being
called dormant. I do believe that it is a bit confusing for any normal user
that goes to read wikipedia, a lot of simple users don't even realize the
history behind this (I myself didn't until just recently, as I've been
reading up on the evolution of the project). But it's fairly useless trying
to clear it up any, as there are a couple users who are very intent on
keeping everything as is, any changes will spark debate (as has already
happened). It's probably not worth it...

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Phillip Rhodes 
wrote:

> Fair enough.   That is the dictionary definition.  I was thinking of how
> it's used colloquially, which seems
> to be more like a synonym for "stagnant."   I'd be OK with either
> "stagnant" or "stalled", if the change
> can be made without someone immediately reverting it.   I probably won't do
> it myself since I quickly tire
> of dicking around with wikipedia edit wars, but I fully support anybody who
> does.
>
>
> Phil
>
>
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Donald Whytock 
> wrote:
>
> > "Moribund" means "dying".  It's a goofy word, yes, which means it's an
> > attention-getting word, which means people will look at it and say, "What
> > the hell does THAT mean?" and focus on why someone would call AOO that.
> >
> > Is "dying" more accurate than "dormant" to describe AOO?  "Dying"
> suggests
> > the project is in decline and will only continue to decline.  Does anyone
> > here think "dying" is more accurate than, say, "Stalled"?
> >
> > Don
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Phillip Rhodes <
> motley.crue@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Moribund" is a goofy word that almost nobody uses in conversation, but
> > > it's probably more accurate than "dormant".   I've spent enough time
> > > goofing around on Wikipedia lately, so, for myself, I'm quite happy to
> > > leave it as is, until the 4.1.2 release comes out.  At that point, I
> > think
> > > it's clear that it should then be made "Active".
> > >
> > > *shrug*
> > >
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Donald Whytock 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be
> > one
> > > > this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes <
> > > motley.crue@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page.  You're
> right,
> > > > > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
> > > > >
> > > > > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the
> > 4.1.2
> > > > > release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there
> aren't
> > > > > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
> > > around
> > > > > planning to start a revert war over this.   :-(
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Phil
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Phil,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it
> says
> > > that
> > > > > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
> > > citations.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed
> info
> > > is
> > > > in
> > > > > > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is
> "dormant"
> > > > > they'll
> > > > > > start looking for different office software.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Max
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything
> that's
> > -
> > > > > >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations.  IOW, I
> don't
> > > see
> > > > > any
> > > > > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there,
> although
> > > one
> > > > > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call
> out
> > > some
> > > > > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
> > > article.
> > > > > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
> > > opposition.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> In a related vein, The Guardian re

Re: Patch to not suppress bullet character from accessible text

[Niklas Johansson]

Hi Marcus

Den 2015-09-15 kl. 19:20, skrev Marcus:
I would recommend a new entry in our issue tracker [1], so that the 
issue is documented. Then you can add the patch as file and state that 
you put the patch under ALv2.


If it's really only 2 lines, then IMHO it should be easy that other 
devs are testing it.


Finally, a short mail about the issue ID as reply to this mail thread 
should notify the devs that the patch is available.



OK, done
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126529

Regards,
Niklas Johansson


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

[Phillip Rhodes]

Fair enough.   That is the dictionary definition.  I was thinking of how
it's used colloquially, which seems
to be more like a synonym for "stagnant."   I'd be OK with either
"stagnant" or "stalled", if the change
can be made without someone immediately reverting it.   I probably won't do
it myself since I quickly tire
of dicking around with wikipedia edit wars, but I fully support anybody who
does.


Phil


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Donald Whytock  wrote:

> "Moribund" means "dying".  It's a goofy word, yes, which means it's an
> attention-getting word, which means people will look at it and say, "What
> the hell does THAT mean?" and focus on why someone would call AOO that.
>
> Is "dying" more accurate than "dormant" to describe AOO?  "Dying" suggests
> the project is in decline and will only continue to decline.  Does anyone
> here think "dying" is more accurate than, say, "Stalled"?
>
> Don
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Phillip Rhodes  >
> wrote:
>
> > "Moribund" is a goofy word that almost nobody uses in conversation, but
> > it's probably more accurate than "dormant".   I've spent enough time
> > goofing around on Wikipedia lately, so, for myself, I'm quite happy to
> > leave it as is, until the 4.1.2 release comes out.  At that point, I
> think
> > it's clear that it should then be made "Active".
> >
> > *shrug*
> >
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Donald Whytock 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be
> one
> > > this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes <
> > motley.crue@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page.  You're right,
> > > > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
> > > >
> > > > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the
> 4.1.2
> > > > release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
> > > > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
> > around
> > > > planning to start a revert war over this.   :-(
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Phil,
> > > > >
> > > > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
> > that
> > > > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
> > citations.
> > > > The
> > > > > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
> > is
> > > in
> > > > > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
> > > > they'll
> > > > > start looking for different office software.
> > > > >
> > > > > Max
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's
> -
> > > > >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations.  IOW, I don't
> > see
> > > > any
> > > > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
> > one
> > > > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out
> > some
> > > > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
> > article.
> > > > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
> > opposition.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
> > > > "Should I
> > > > >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative
> > that's
> > > > >> spreading through the press, about AOO being
> dead/dormant/whatever,
> > or
> > > > how
> > > > >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
> > > this
> > > > >> kind of stuff spread around so widely.  :-(
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Phil
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <
> > lui...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi Max,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >  Hi there,
> > > > 
> > > >  the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see
> where
> > > > they
> > > > 
> > > > >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I
> > think
> > > > >>> it's
> > > > >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done
> > about
> > > > it.
> > > > >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its
> version
> > >

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

[Donald Whytock]

"Moribund" means "dying".  It's a goofy word, yes, which means it's an
attention-getting word, which means people will look at it and say, "What
the hell does THAT mean?" and focus on why someone would call AOO that.

Is "dying" more accurate than "dormant" to describe AOO?  "Dying" suggests
the project is in decline and will only continue to decline.  Does anyone
here think "dying" is more accurate than, say, "Stalled"?

Don

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Phillip Rhodes 
wrote:

> "Moribund" is a goofy word that almost nobody uses in conversation, but
> it's probably more accurate than "dormant".   I've spent enough time
> goofing around on Wikipedia lately, so, for myself, I'm quite happy to
> leave it as is, until the 4.1.2 release comes out.  At that point, I think
> it's clear that it should then be made "Active".
>
> *shrug*
>
>
> Phil
>
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Donald Whytock 
> wrote:
>
> > There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be one
> > this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes <
> motley.crue@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page.  You're right,
> > > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
> > >
> > > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2
> > > release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
> > > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
> around
> > > planning to start a revert war over this.   :-(
> > >
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Phil,
> > > >
> > > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
> that
> > > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
> citations.
> > > The
> > > > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
> is
> > in
> > > > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
> > > they'll
> > > > start looking for different office software.
> > > >
> > > > Max
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
> > > >
> > > >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
> > > >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations.  IOW, I don't
> see
> > > any
> > > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
> one
> > > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out
> some
> > > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
> article.
> > > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
> opposition.
> > > >>
> > > >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
> > > "Should I
> > > >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative
> that's
> > > >> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever,
> or
> > > how
> > > >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
> > this
> > > >> kind of stuff spread around so widely.  :-(
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Phil
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <
> lui...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Max,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:
> > > 
> > >  Hi there,
> > > 
> > >  the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where
> > > they
> > > 
> > > >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I
> think
> > > >>> it's
> > > >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done
> about
> > > it.
> > > >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version
> > 5.0
> > > >>> and
> > > >>> is getting ahead of us.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> thanks for the alert.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the
> > > entry
> > > >>> to reflect the facts.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
> > > >>> arduous.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Louis
> > > >>>
> > >  Max
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > -
> > >  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > >  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> > > 
> > > 
> > -
> > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apa

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

[Phillip Rhodes]

"Moribund" is a goofy word that almost nobody uses in conversation, but
it's probably more accurate than "dormant".   I've spent enough time
goofing around on Wikipedia lately, so, for myself, I'm quite happy to
leave it as is, until the 4.1.2 release comes out.  At that point, I think
it's clear that it should then be made "Active".

*shrug*


Phil

This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Donald Whytock 
wrote:

> There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be one
> this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes  >
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page.  You're right,
> > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
> >
> > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the 4.1.2
> > release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
> > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting around
> > planning to start a revert war over this.   :-(
> >
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Phil,
> > >
> > > what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says that
> > > AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the citations.
> > The
> > > presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info is
> in
> > > the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
> > they'll
> > > start looking for different office software.
> > >
> > > Max
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
> > >
> > >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
> > >> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations.  IOW, I don't see
> > any
> > >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although one
> > >> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out some
> > >> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the article.
> > >> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face opposition.
> > >>
> > >> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
> > "Should I
> > >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
> > >>
> > >> I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
> > >> spreading through the press, about AOO being dead/dormant/whatever, or
> > how
> > >> LO is clearly "the winner", but it's definitely unfortunate to see
> this
> > >> kind of stuff spread around so widely.  :-(
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Phil
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Max,
> > >>>
> > >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 16:31, Max Merbald  wrote:
> > 
> >  Hi there,
> > 
> >  the Engish Wikipedia claims that AOO is dormant. I can't see where
> > they
> > 
> > >>> have the information from. The sources they use don't say so. I think
> > >>> it's
> > >>> definitely bad for OpenOffice when people think no more is done about
> > it.
> > >>> The problem is also that LibreOffice has just published its version
> 5.0
> > >>> and
> > >>> is getting ahead of us.
> > >>>
> > >>> thanks for the alert.
> > >>>
> > >>> Wikipedia is composed by a crowd of editors, and you can change the
> > entry
> > >>> to reflect the facts.
> > >>>
> > >>> So can anyone on this list. Becoming an editor at Wikipedia is not
> > >>> arduous.
> > >>>
> > >>> Louis
> > >>>
> >  Max
> > 
> > 
> > 
> -
> >  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> >  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> > 
> > 
> -
> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: One Addons.xcu with toolbars for AOO and LO possible?

[SOS]

in LO the higest "working version is limited to "3.0" so its a bug
On 15/09/2015 19:23, Tsutomu Uchino wrote:

Hi,

I have added l:LibreOffice-minimal-version to my extension's
deescription.xml file.
But I got error while installing the package to Apache OpenOffice 4.
On the current version, you can not put it into an extension that targets
AOO.

Regards

2015-09-16 1:51 GMT+09:00 Oliver Brinzing :


Hi Mathias,

I can't find any explanation for a difference for the 

node in description.xml. It seems AOO and LO tests always against the
same entries.


please see
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Extension_Development for
lo:

http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006";
  xmlns:l="http://libreoffice.org/extensions/description/2011";
  xmlns:d="
http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006";
  xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink";>

   
http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006";
  xmlns:l="http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006";
  xmlns:d="
http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006";
  xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink";>

   



Regards
Oliver



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Patch to not suppress bullet character from accessible text

[Damjan Jovanovic]

Hi Niklas

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Niklas Johansson
 wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've contributed an accessibility related patch to LibreOffice which I'd
> like to see included in Apache OpenOffice.

Thank you so much for this!

> How do I best go about doing that. I do not mind relicensing the patch (as I
> understand it that should be possible
> right?). However I'm not sure how to contribute to OpenOffice and I'm not
> really that thrilled about setting up
> a developer environment for OpenOffice just to push a two line fix.

Section 5 of the Apache License states any contributions you
intentionally submit to us are placed under the Apache License, so
just attaching the patch to a Bugzilla issue is enough. If you can't
compile Apache OpenOffice, the next best thing to do, if you can, is
to get your patch to apply cleanly to our source.

Oh and LibreOffice is quick to copy most of our patches, so in future
you are welcome to contribute patches here only, they will probably
get into LibreOffice anyway and you'll hit 2 birds with1 stone :-).

> --
> Regards,
> Niklas Johansson
>

Regards
Damjan

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: One Addons.xcu with toolbars for AOO and LO possible?

[Tsutomu Uchino]

Hi,

I have added l:LibreOffice-minimal-version to my extension's
deescription.xml file.
But I got error while installing the package to Apache OpenOffice 4.
On the current version, you can not put it into an extension that targets
AOO.

Regards

2015-09-16 1:51 GMT+09:00 Oliver Brinzing :

> Hi Mathias,
>
> I can't find any explanation for a difference for the 
>>> node in description.xml. It seems AOO and LO tests always against the
>>> same entries.
>>>
>>
> please see
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Extension_Development for
> lo:
>
> http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006";
>  xmlns:l="http://libreoffice.org/extensions/description/2011";
>  xmlns:d="
> http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006";
>  xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink";>
> 
>   
> 
> aoo is a bit different:
>
> http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006";
>  xmlns:l="http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006";
>  xmlns:d="
> http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006";
>  xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink";>
> 
>   
> 
>
>
> Regards
> Oliver
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Patch to not suppress bullet character from accessible text

[Marcus]

Am 09/15/2015 06:27 PM, schrieb Niklas Johansson:

I've contributed an accessibility related patch to LibreOffice which I'd
like to see included in Apache OpenOffice.


that's great. We appreciate every new code contribution.


How do I best go about doing that. I do not mind relicensing the patch
(as I understand it that should be possible
right?).


Sure, when you are the author of the patch, then it's your decision 
about the licenses to use.


> However I'm not sure how to contribute to OpenOffice and I'm

not really that thrilled about setting up
a developer environment for OpenOffice just to push a two line fix.


I would recommend a new entry in our issue tracker [1], so that the 
issue is documented. Then you can add the patch as file and state that 
you put the patch under ALv2.


If it's really only 2 lines, then IMHO it should be easy that other devs 
are testing it.


Finally, a short mail about the issue ID as reply to this mail thread 
should notify the devs that the patch is available.


[1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/

HTH

Marcus

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: One Addons.xcu with toolbars for AOO and LO possible?

[Oliver Brinzing]

Hi Mathias,


I can't find any explanation for a difference for the 
node in description.xml. It seems AOO and LO tests always against the
same entries.


please see 
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Extension_Development for lo:

http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006";
 xmlns:l="http://libreoffice.org/extensions/description/2011";
 
xmlns:d="http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006";
 xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink";>

  
http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006";
 xmlns:l="http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006";
 
xmlns:d="http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006";
 xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink";>

  



Regards
Oliver


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Should we reset the SNAPSHOT tag?

[Kay Schenk]

On 09/15/2015 09:20 AM, Yuri Dario wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
>> Right now our SNAPSHOT tag, which is used by the buildbots
>> is set at r1614269. Should this be changed to r1698423 when Andrea
>> changed the version number to 4.1.2?
> 
> my latest commit on AOO410 branch is  1702993

OK. I guess we wait.


-- 

MzK

“The journey of a thousand miles begins
 with a single step.”
  --Lao Tzu



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Patch to not suppress bullet character from accessible text

[Niklas Johansson]

Hi

I've contributed an accessibility related patch to LibreOffice which I'd 
like to see included in Apache OpenOffice.
How do I best go about doing that. I do not mind relicensing the patch 
(as I understand it that should be possible
right?). However I'm not sure how to contribute to OpenOffice and I'm 
not really that thrilled about setting up

a developer environment for OpenOffice just to push a two line fix.

--
Regards,
Niklas Johansson


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Should we reset the SNAPSHOT tag?

[Yuri Dario]

Hi,


> Right now our SNAPSHOT tag, which is used by the buildbots
> is set at r1614269. Should this be changed to r1698423 when Andrea
> changed the version number to 4.1.2?

my latest commit on AOO410 branch is  1702993

-- 
Bye,

Yuri Dario



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: One Addons.xcu with toolbars for AOO and LO possible?

[Mathias Röllig]

Correction, there was some nodes too much:

Now I have in the Addons.xcu:

  

  ... Old Scheme ...

  
  

  
Toolbar Title
  
  
... New AOO 4.x Scheme ...
  

  


With the files and entries for all ...WindowsState.xcu it works for AOO 
and LO.  :-)




But nevertheless I want to know:


And if I have to provide two extensions: how can I declare which
software the extension is for?
I can't find any explanation for a difference for the 
node in description.xml. It seems AOO and LO tests always against the
same entries.


Regards, Mathias

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: One Addons.xcu with toolbars for AOO and LO possible?

[Mathias Röllig]

I answer again to myself. ;-)


I read
https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=63814&p=290135#p290135
again and again. But I can't find the answer if and how it is possible
to provide only one extension where toolbars will work with AOO and LO.


After thinking a long time about
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Extensions/Extensions_and_Apache_OpenOffice_4.0#addons.xcu_changes
especially about the solution with 2 different named Addons.xcu I tried 
to merge them.


Now I have in the Addons.xcu:


  oor:op="replace">

... Old Scheme ...
  

  
  

  
Toolbar Title
  
  
... New AOO 4.x Scheme ...
  

  


With the files and entries for all ...WindowsState.xcu it works for AOO 
an LO.  :-)



But nevertheless I want to know:


And if I have to provide two extensions: how can I declare which
software the extension is for?
I can't find any explanation for a difference for the 
node in description.xml. It seems AOO and LO tests always against the
same entries.


Regards, Mathias

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

One Addons.xcu with toolbars for AOO and LO possible?

[Mathias Röllig]

Hello!

I read
https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=63814&p=290135#p290135
again and again. But I can't find the answer if and how it is possible 
to provide only one extension where toolbars will work with AOO and LO.


And if I have to provide two extensions: how can I declare which 
software the extension is for?
I can't find any explanation for a difference for the  
node in description.xml. It seems AOO and LO tests always against the 
same entries.


Regards, Mathias



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: reload of registered template directories (by extension)

[Mathias Röllig]

Hello!


Try the followings to update:
http://www.openoffice.org/api/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/frame/DocumentTemplates.html
http://www.openoffice.org/api/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/frame/XDocumentTemplates.html#update


Thank you very much! This is what I was searching for.

Regards, Mathias

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Delete emails from the list users...@openoffice.apache.org?

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] 

> you can point her to this webpage [1]. It depends on the 
> arguments if a 
> removal is possible.
> 
> If it's already mirrored in the Internet, 

True, on this issue I had not thought.

> then it's 
> up to the admins of these servers if they delete the mails, too.
> 
> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/public-archives.html

Fine, that's more than I expected.


Thank you.

Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

[Marcus]

The best case we can make is a new release. So, even for this little 
change it's good to make progress with 4.1.2.


PS:
I've my own opinion about Wikipedia and it's data quality. Maybe you can 
guess in what direction is could go.


Marcus



Am 09/15/2015 12:14 AM, schrieb John D'Orazio:

Yes I just received a message from him on my Wikipedia page, after he
reverted my edits twice. Looking at his own Wikipedia talk page and on the
OpenOffice talk page, more than one Wikipedia user has confronted him about
having COI as regards the OpenOffice project. He answers that he has no
issues or COI and that he is completely external. And guess what, he
participates in Wikipedia as a "resolver of COI". Sounds to me like someone
who becomes a police officer so as not to get arrested...

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Matthias Seidel<
matthias.sei...@hamburg.de>  wrote:


Well, he did it again...

That is what he wrote to me on google+:

"And don't do what the previous AOO editor did and inexplicably fail to
reveal their COI."



Am 14.09.2015 um 22:52 schrieb John D'Orazio:


Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He
still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of
discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the
"Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate
derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk
page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially
in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of
that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage
and
I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to
be
cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that
reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache
OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big
deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions
about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence
the corrections to the infobox information).
I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not
be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the
Apache license?

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk
wrote:




On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote:


I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to
three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia
moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever...



Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be
editing wars forever! :)



On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel<


matthias.sei...@hamburg.de


wrote:




https://twitter.com/davidgerard



Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald:

I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants

to damage OpenOffice?



Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:

There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be



one



this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".


On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes

wrote:

Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page.  You're right,


having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.

I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the


4.1.2



release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't

certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting


around



planning to start a revert war over this.   :-(



Phil


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald
wrote:

Hi Phil,



what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says


that



AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the



citations.





The


presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info

is in
the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"

they'll


start looking for different office software.


Max



Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:

I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -


strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations.  IOW, I don't


see





any




supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although



one



could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out



some



concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the



article.



Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face



opposition.





In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled

"Should I




Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".










http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office




I don't know if there's any easy wa

Re: Should we reset the SNAPSHOT tag?

[Marcus]

Am 09/14/2015 11:31 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:

Right now our SNAPSHOT tag, which is used by the buildbots
is set at r1614269. Should this be changed to r1698423 when Andrea
changed the version number to 4.1.2?


IMHO yes. There were already a good number of committs (in both 
branches). So, it makes sense to move the tag to a higher number to see 
if the build are still successful.


Marcus

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Delete emails from the list users...@openoffice.apache.org?

[Marcus]

Am 09/15/2015 07:44 AM, schrieb Jörg Schmidt:

A user of the German mailing list (users...@openoffice.apache.org) asking for 
deletion of their emails [1]. Is this possible? If so, who can do practically?


you can point her to this webpage [1]. It depends on the arguments if a 
removal is possible.


In any case she should take into account that the data is only deleted 
on Apache servers. If it's already mirrored in the Internet, then it's 
up to the admins of these servers if they delete the mails, too.


[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/public-archives.html

Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org