Re: [tdf-discuss] Updates and spreadsheets

[Steve Edmonds]

Hi.
I have had this also, and in writer and tables.
The changes are small but can add up with long documents.
I don't know the cause, if it is a slight change in kerning, or the 
rendering of the type or the base style changes slightly.

Sometimes I can adjust the style slightly to compensate.
Steve

On 04/01/2021 22:20, sophi wrote:

Hi Robert,
Le 02/01/2021 à 15:05, Robert Peirce a écrit :

Does this happen to anybody else?  A new version of LibreOffice messes
up the formatting in my spreadsheets.

I have them arranged with cell height set so a complete number of full
cells is on the sheet.  Most upgrades shift this a bit.  Sometimes it
contracts a bit, which is not a big problem.  Sometimes it expands so
going to the bottom cell in the sheet causes the next row to appear.

So far I have just re-adjusted everything but I wonder if there is a
better solution.  I don't think this should happen but I don't know what
to do about it.

Sorry that you meet a problem with your spreadsheets. You should post
your request on the QA list to sort out if this is a bug or maybe a
reset of your profile is needed. The discuss list is dedicated to
discussions among members.

Cheers
Sophie




--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [tdf-discuss] security related information, CVE-2019-9850, CVE-2019-9851, CVE-2019-9852

[Steve Edmonds]

Had me confused.


https://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/security/advisories/


Addressed in LibreOffice 6.2.6/6.3.0


CVE-2019-9850

Insufficient url validation allowing LibreLogo script execution

CVE-2019-9851

LibreLogo global-event script execution

CVE-2019-9852

Insufficient URL encoding flaw in allowed script location check



On 15/08/2019 22:52, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> tl;dr; Upgrade to >= 6.2.6 or >= 6.0.0.
>
> There is a cluster of issues here.
>
> 
>
> CVE-2019-9850 Insufficient url validation allowing LibreLogo script
> execution
>
> There was a way to encode the script url that could bypass the fix of
> CVE-2019-9848
> https://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/security/advisories/CVE-2019-9850
>
> 
>
> CVE-2019-9851 LibreLogo global-event script execution
>
> The fix of CVE-2019-9848 blocked execution of LibreLogo from document
> script events, e.g. mouse-over, but there is another separate feature
> of global script events, e.g. document-open which are also affected
> https://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/security/advisories/CVE-2019-9851
>
> 
>
> CVE-2019-9852 Insufficient URL encoding flaw in allowed script location
> check
>
> There was a way to encode the script url to bypasses the fix of CVE-
> 2018-16858 to again allow scripts in arbitrary locations on the file
> system to be executed 
>
> https://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/security/advisories/CVE-2019-9852
>
>


-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [tdf-discuss] Cannot Open PDF Landscape Pages Properly When Libreoffice

[Steve Edmonds]

Hi.
You could try printing to file as postscript and then converting the 
postscript to PDF. (Ghostscript, ps2pdf are free). I have to do this 
with quite a few of my files because LO fails to create correct PDF's.

Steve
On 2014-12-02 10:15, anne-ology wrote:

If it's not a bug in these newer versions, then
   choose to 'view' landscape rather than portrait  ;-)

Hope this helps,



From: clarence clarenceph...@hotmail.com
Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:00 AM
Subject: [tdf-discuss] Cannot Open PDF Landscape Pages Properly When
Libreoffice
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org

Hi guys,

When I open a pdf with landscape and portrait pages, only the portrait pages
get displayed correctly.
What can I do if it is a large file with many pages?
How do I correct this problem?
Thanks.




--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Cannot Open PDF Landscape Pages Properly When Libreoffice

[Steve Edmonds]

Just tried that, doesn't fix my problems. Still have to use ps2pdf.
steve
On 2014-12-04 12:36, Tony Pursell wrote:

Hi

I find that if you print the file and select 'Print to file' on the Options
tab of the LO print dialogue, it will produce a PDF with portrait and
landscape pages.

Tony
Using Ubuntu 14.04

On 3 December 2014 at 22:29, Steve Edmonds steve.edmo...@ptglobal.com
wrote:


Hi.
You could try printing to file as postscript and then converting the
postscript to PDF. (Ghostscript, ps2pdf are free). I have to do this with
quite a few of my files because LO fails to create correct PDF's.
Steve

On 2014-12-02 10:15, anne-ology wrote:


 If it's not a bug in these newer versions, then
choose to 'view' landscape rather than portrait  ;-)

 Hope this helps,



From: clarence clarenceph...@hotmail.com
Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:00 AM
Subject: [tdf-discuss] Cannot Open PDF Landscape Pages Properly When
Libreoffice
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org

Hi guys,

When I open a pdf with landscape and portrait pages, only the portrait
pages
get displayed correctly.
What can I do if it is a large file with many pages?
How do I correct this problem?
Thanks.



--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-
unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted




--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Help please with LibreOffice

[Steve Edmonds]

On 2014-04-10 08:41, Mike Brookes wrote:

Hi
I've used LibreOffice for a number of years trouble-free. I have a 
laptop and use windows, not Mac.
Last weekend I downloaded to my laptop a new application for 
downloading music from YouTube; it didn't work and I proceeded to 
uninstall it through start/control panel/uninstall. This seemed to 
work as the thing disappeared from the list and the desktop ikon 
removed itself. However, a couple of days later I used LibreOffice, 
went into my documents list and noticed there was a file with the name 
of the application I had uninstalled. I thought that shouldn't be 
there and I don't want it so I highlighted it and hit delete. That 
immediately changed my full list of files and documents into 
gobbledygook made up of caps and numbers so I can't identify files or 
docs when I want them. I can't see a way to reverse this. I can still 
access my proper documents list through Start and Documents where it 
still comes up as it should. But opening LibreOffice and then 
Documents I just get the gobbledygook.
Can you please help? I'd be very grateful (I'm still on LibreOffice 
3.6 and don't want to move to the new 4. until I've sussed this problem)

Many thanks
Mike Brookes


Hi.
Do you have a restore point you can go back to, prior to the software 
you installed.

Steve


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Donations system: pay for a feature

[Steve Edmonds]

On 2013-05-16 07:45, Joel Madero wrote:



Any payments and/or donations must be accounted for and if the person

paying has any intent it to go to xyz, then by regulations we may need to
account for that payment/donation and where it went to.

That is the real problem with targeted donations and payments.  There will
be a mess in paperwork to deal with it.  Opt in, opt out, What it was used
for.  Keeping track of all of who pays what, for what, can cost more than
thepayment in paperwork and legal fees.


This has been discussed quite a bit on user list and brought up during ESC
at some point and I thought the consensus was we'll just let them do what
they want and not endorse, support, etc... any of that. I thought that
kept us out of legal muddy waters. It'd be similar to me just going to a
friend who is a programmer and saying dude, can I pay you $100 to fix this
issue - a contract completely out of TDF's hands.


Best,
Joel
Would this paid for feature not then create a fork in the code, then are 
you committing to maintaining that branch until some time (may be never) 
that the branch feature is voted into the main code base. It seems a bit 
impractical when you have a continually evolving product to pay to add a 
feature unless you are assured it will be included in the main code base 
and maintained.

Steve

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: End of Life support for MSO 2003 countdown ?

[Steve Edmonds]

On 2013-04-24 05:22, Upscope wrote:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 05:23:46 PM Charles-H. Schulz wrote:

Le mardi 23 avril 2013 à 07:42 -0700, Pedro a écrit :

Hi upscope


upscope wrote


I will be glad to supply the document if it would help, and the
author agrees (should be no problem). Let me know if that will
help.

Of course it helps! Please submit the document and any problems you
find https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=LibreOffice


upscope wrote


Thanks for your interest and I'll keep testing new version until
it
works.

Don't just wait for a version to work for you. Submitting  the bugs,
documents, problems you find will increase the *chances* that your
problems are fixed...

Although submitting bugs/documents is no guarantee that any
developer will look at them or fix them, NOT submitting is our
worst possible option :)

I have to concur with Pedro. Indeed, if you can it is best to submit a
bug report containing the document itself and run some easy but
preliminary tests: do the formatting problem remain the same with the
platform (i.e mac, windows, linux... different versions of Windows?),
etc.

best,

--
Charles-H. Schulz
Co-Founder  Director, The Document Foundation,
Zimmerstr. 69, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive:
http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages
sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Search for my old bug report did not find it but did find another one
that I submitted at the time, was against version 3.6.5.

I submitted a new bug on this even thought there are acouple hundred bus
in a search for .docx. several were sinular. I also attached the
document I am having trouble with now.

[CODE]
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63851
[/CODE]

Can not do any test against Mac or Windows since I am exclusively Linux.
i could install XP in VirtualBOx with Office 2003 but I don't think it
will open .docx documents.

Thanks for your replies.


Russ
Hi. I see the uploaded file is type text. I can save as a docx file and 
open it but just clicking the link opens the file as plain text. And 
yes, it is a mess like many I open.

Steve


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Text are truncated after saving document

[Steve Edmonds]

On 2012-06-05 14:13, rei wrote:

I have documents that have been edited with several word processors (Abiword,
MS. Word, etc.). When I edited, saved, and reopened them using LibreOffice,
all text in those documents are always truncated, like this one:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/file/n3988204/Edited.doc Edited.doc

If documents' styles and formatting are set to 'Default', the text look
good. However, is there a way to so that I don't need to do this every time
I open documents? There are a lot of documents like this in my PC and it's
very cumbersome to  set their styles manually.


LibreOffice Version: 3.5.3.2
Operating System: Ubuntu 12.04 (64 bit).

--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Text-are-truncated-after-saving-document-tp3988204.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi. This looks fine in my LO 3.4.6. Where is the text truncated, may be 
I am missing it.

Steve

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Naming builds. Please???

[Steve Edmonds]

On 2011-12-08 14:12, Marc Paré wrote:
 Hi Christoph,

 Le 2011-12-07 16:54, christoph.no...@documentfoundation.org a écrit :
 Hi Marc, all,

 see
 http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Whiteboard/LibreOffice_Send_Feedback


 Help appreciated :-)

 Cheers,
 Christoph
 Nice!

 I imagine, that if the user finally got to the point of filling out a
 bug, that, perhaps, there would be an automatic forced search of any
 similar bug(s) having been submitted? I know that the hardest part of
 filing a bug on any project is the initial search for similar
 bugs/complaints. Once the search completed then it is all pretty easy
 to complete aside from giving a good description and a way to
 replicate the bug.

 Nice whiteboard on automating the process.

 Cheers,

 Marc
Opensuse has this in their bug reports. When you file a report, the top
100 bugs are listed (search with /) then a search box if not in top 100,
then on down to filing the bug.
steve

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Advice

[Steve Edmonds]

On 25/08/11 12:50 AM, Robert Boehm wrote:
Hi...no problems...just asking for advice.  I have been testing the 
beta builds of LO since it came out and
use openSUSE as my main operating system.  On my production machine, 
I have been using the Stable
builds provided by the SUSE repository which has worked fine.  If 
there any SUSE development people who

monitor this list, I hope that they chime in.

It seems as if the stable repository is ULTRA conservative...as I wait 
for updates to the latest stable branch,
they are still pushing version 3.3.3.  I have had no trouble at all 
with version 3.4.2.  3.4.3 is already in RC status...
why the delay?  So...my question is this:  With absolutely no trouble 
using the vanilla builds...I am thinking of

going to the LO vanilla latest stable builds.

What advantages does the SUSE builds (on SUSE) have over the vanilla 
builds, if any?  I am not too worried
about desktop integration, as it seems as if the vanilla builds 
integrate and work fine (and look good too)


Sorry if this is a bother and cluttering the list, but I just want 
some advice from those out there...and/or any
word from the SUSE people what their master plan is with the stable 
repository.  The UNSTABLE is still
pushing 3.4.2 as if it's cutting edge...while 3.4.3 is already out 
there.  Of course, on my production environment,
I will be only using a stable build anyway...but I want to move 
forward faster than the SUSE repository is


Hi. I use 3.3.4 from the LO site on my Suse boxes in the office and have 
never had problems. On my laptop that is not essential I use 3.4.1 to 
follow the more advanced changes, generally without problem. I also have 
OOO3.2.1 on the office Suse boxes as sometimes I need to go backwards to 
open a document correctly. There were a couple of quirks I found to 
installing the LO RPMs on my Suse.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] [QA] Opening a .doc file - Regression in Libreoffice 3.4 ???

[Steve Edmonds]

On 2011-08-24 08:47, Sveinn í Felli wrote:
 Sorry if this is not the proper list to ask, but before filing a bug
 I'd like to know if someone has seen this before:

 The following .doc file does open correctly in OpenOffice.org 3.3.0
 and OpenOffice.org 3.2.1 but neither in LibreOffice 3.4.2 nor in
 LibreOffice 3.4.3 OOO340m1 (Build:301) - tested on Debian and LinuxMint:

 http://www.tullverket.se/download/18.4ab1598c11632f3ba9280009674/enhetsdokument+anvands+vid+import+och+export+4+blad_tv718_3.doc


 Seems like a problem with lookup in many fields (Error: Source
 reference not found), also looks like cell formatting is separated
 onto another page than the form tables.
 Curiously in LibreOffice 3.4.3 OOO340m1 the file is always opened as
 read-only, no matter which permissions or filesystem is used.

 Of course this could simply be a corrupted file, still it opens
 correctly in OOo.

 Any ideas ?

I can confirm on Suse OOO3.2.1 opens it ok and in LO3.3.4 the layout is
wrecked.
steve

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] test mail

[Steve Edmonds]

On 9/07/11 6:35 AM, Christophe Strobbe wrote:


Some of my mails never reach the list...


For some reason (some setting I have) on one PC I do not see my emails 
received from the list when I send them to the list. I am using Google 
hosted domain and the mail shows up in sent but not in the list when I 
view it. Replies to my emaisl do show up though.

steve

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: Embedding Goodies in the ODF Package (was RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard ... )

[Steve Edmonds]

On 27/06/11 11:06 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:

On 27 Jun 2011, at 04:47, Marc Paré wrote:


The problem with this is that now someone has to fish the fonts out of there 
and install them where they are actually recognized for presenting the 
document.  If LibreOffice is updated to automate the capture of fonts and their 
extraction again, aren't we back to the previously-unsolved problem?

I don't know. Is this what has happened to the .pdf files? Why could not ODF 
use some form of embedded fonts as Adobe Acrobat does now? There doesn't seem 
to be a problem with this.

As I understand it, PDF files don't usually embed the whole font; they just 
embed the parts needed to make the document in question render correctly in the 
case where the document is being represented as text (since PDF is actually 
able to encapsulate many different ways to represent a document). When it's 
used, the font is included in the rendering computation of the reader program, 
and is never installed on any target system. Not that it could be since the 
font will be incomplete anyway.

For ODF, since the format is intended to be editable, the font that was 
embedded would need to be complete and capable of being installed on any 
platform where that editing might take place so that any text can be edited. To 
my eyes that poses substantial problems, such as:
1. * Installing fonts dynamically on any platform, seamlessly on document-load
2. * Removing those fonts dynamically, including knowing when to do so
3. * Managing the licensing for fonts so that ODF does not promote copyright 
infringement

While it might be possible to devise kludgey solutions, each of those issues is 
a substantial bear-trap and the first two in particular would favour 
implementations that have no interest in being platform-independent.

While it would indeed be lovely if a miracle happened, it seems to me entirely 
reasonable that a truly open, cross-platform standard would choose not to 
attempt to devise solutions for these challenges.

S.

OO had the option to install fonts only for the use of OO, not system 
wide use. This was done through spadmin I think. I wonder how that was 
implemented.
Are 1 and 2 not effectively add font to OO only on open, reload 
document and remove font from OO only on document close (if no other 
open document requires those fonts.)

steve

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review, prerequisite for balloting as OASIS Standard

[Steve Edmonds]

On 27/06/11 7:04 AM, Robert Derman wrote:

Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:

Hi Robert,

2011/6/25 Robert Derman robert.der...@pressenter.com:


This could eventually destroy ODF as a viable world standard if at some
point some software company or organization comes up with a popular 
program
(example Microsoft) that embeds fonts so that anyone editing the 
document,
viewing it, or printing it uses the same font chosen by the original 
author.

 No computer standard is likely to survive long term as long as adamant
decisions are (carved in stone) and not left to future users to 
contramand

if deemed expedient.


I think that is a bit harsh, don't you think?
Not really, I did say could, not would.  If there is anything that 
watching the evolution of computers and software over the last 30 
years has taught me it is that there is no way to predict what will 
happen in the future, so it is unwise in the extreme to be too adamant 
about what must be, going forward.

FWIW, here is a description of how Microsoft Office supports embedding
of fonts in documents and the limitations to it. If you want to take a
look at how this is achieved in OOXML, take a look at OOXML section
17.8.1 Font Embedding.

:o)


Hi.
Can the ODF file format not include a container for user-data. May be 
specifying how that data should be catalogued but not what that data is. 
There is no worry about legalities in regards ODF and placing fonts in 
that data. Then LO would be free to place fonts in that user-data and 
use them as required for faithfull document transferal. Provides a 
solution while the debate continues.

steve

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)

[Steve Edmonds]

Hi.

On 2011-06-27 14:17, Robert Derman wrote:
 Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
 Le Sun, 26 Jun 2011 09:41:07 -0700 (PDT),
 plino pedl...@gmail.com a écrit :

  
 Charles-H. Schulz wrote:

 Now, as for humility, claiming in an assured and definitive way
 that ODF will lose if it
 does not embed fonts is not exactly humble either.
   
 I didn't say that. I said that IF OASIS insists on refusing to embed
 fonts in ODF (which is what you also peremptorily affirmed, even
 though Dennis Hammilton in the ODF TC says it's not so) it is not the
 right file format for LibreOffice.
 


 Why? Note: I'm not saying it's a bad idea to embed fonts, I'm saying
 (me, who's also part of that ODF TC) it's very unlikely. I think there
 will be problems of many kinds, some of them being of legal nature
 (esp. related to the use and distribution of fonts). But let me ask it
 again: why should it not be the right file format for LibreOffice?
 Fonts embedding cannot be the only one feature that will help us break
 the dominant vendor's monopoly, can it?

  
 ODF doesn't loose any value as an open universal file format if it
 decides not to embed fonts. It just isn't right for an office suite.

 In any case, it's my opinion. It doesn't lack humility.
 


 Okay... So let's get very practical here. You mentioned the case of
 Impress presentations, and I think it's fair to say that what you have
 described is something many of us has faced in the past, with .odp
 files or .ppt files. Now here are two cases that would advocate for not
 embedding fonts. What I'm trying to show here is that font embedding is
 not the magical feature that's going to solve all of our problems, not
 that embedding fonts is a bad idea in every case.
 Case A: User Joe wants to use some super-duper fonts (called, font A)
 for his presentation and embeds fonts within his sales pitch
 presentation in .odp . Fonts A has been designed by designer Bob, who
 specifically licensed them for non commercial usage. User Joe is
 sending his presentation to customer Ike, his boss, Peter, and his
 colleague, Ed. His presentation embeds fonts that are not eligible for
 commercial use (per Designer Bob's terms). By using these fonts in his
 presentation, User Joe has infringed the license 3 times. But it gets
 worse. Customer Ike sends the presentation to his boss, Mary. 4 times.
 Mary sends it to her head of accounting for validation. 5 times... And
 so on. Do you get the point?
   
 This reminds me of something I once heard, I think it was on the OOo
 Discuss list, anyway a number of users were proposing a font
 Blacklist that would list those fonts with too restrictive
 licensing.  End users would be advised not to purchase, download or
 use any of the fonts on the list.  It would be kind of a
 persona-non-grata of fonts.  The upshot of it was that it was a way of
 saying to font designers/publishers -- If that's the way you want to
 be with your licensing, then you can keep your darned font!

This is a problem that practically affects our company. The
practicalities do not change the outcome or licensing considerations,
only the difficulty of using LO and ODF.

We have a number of custom fonts representing control panel displays, we
use these to write operator manuals, we send the manuals to various
people for editing and we send the manuals out for translation (other
language versions). We also use Arial as the standard font.

We find the arial font varies from machine to machine, and the writing
reflows and layout is upset. We need our custom fonts. Our present
solution is to email the odt and attach the fonts to the email, so the
fonts just tag along with the document for the user to install, not
convenient and everyone gets the fonts.

The better solution is to include the fonts required in the odt file
just for LO use (like MS, and 2 previously mentioned word processors).
This also enables more control on use of the licensed fonts, if even
just a big warning Have you checked your terms of use and they can't
be saved as system fonts for general use.
steve

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 ...)

[Steve Edmonds]

Hi Dennis.

On 26/06/11 13:53, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
 All right, let's put a stake through the heart of this puppy.

 I just created three documents.  One is pretty large so I put them at Windows 
 SkyDrive:
 https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=33894f6489994ba7resid=33894F6489994BA7!371


  1. A Microsoft Word 2010 1-page document with a small image and completely 
 using the Linux Biolinum G font, a GPL-ed font that came along with 
 LibreOffice 3.3.2, the one I use for ODF production work.  The document is 
 almost 4 MB because I asked Word to embed every font (it included 9, 
 including the Biolinum G).  
   This is the Word document whose name begins with Fonts-2011-06-25-18100-..

  2. An OpenOffice Text document produced from the Word document. It has no 
 fonts and it is quite small.  If you open it in LibreOffice 3.x, you may 
 encounter a complaint that the file is corrupted.  If so, let LibreOffice 
 correct the document and it should be fine.  (There is some breakage between 
 some ODF 1.1 producers and some ODF 1.2 (anticipatory) consumers and we need 
 to sort that out.

  3. A PDF. It doesn't seem to have the fonts either.  Apparently the export 
 didn't conclude that any were needed.  I gave it permission to export the 
 ones it could.  Alternatively, it might have exported just what was needed. I 
 can't tell.

  - Dennis


 -Original Message-
 From: charles.h.sch...@gmail.com [mailto:charles.h.sch...@gmail.com] On 
 Behalf Of Charles-H. Schulz
 Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 08:33
 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
 Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 
 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)

 Le Sat, 25 Jun 2011 08:01:26 -0700 (PDT),
 plino pedl...@gmail.com a écrit :

   
 Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
 
 No it doesn't. 

   
 Of course it does.  Maybe you don't use it or don't know how to do
 it. But don't say it doesn't.
 
 So are you saying your word documents embed fonts on a daily basis?
 I've never seen any similar documents. You get the impression of that
 -maybe- because on a windows to windows environment everybody uses
 fonts that are already available on the system. Of course, ODF (and
 others) do keep the reference of the font name and if I have the same
 font on my system it will try to reuse the same font. But just for
 reference: except for specific cases: office document formats including
 MSOffice DON'T include fonts. PDF does (there are less used formats)
 and that's what it's know for.


   

 Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
 
 But I think we're also missing the point if -let's say
 we were to design a brand new office file format that embeds or does
 not embed fonts- why should anyone be using it? Choosing a format
 that's not the dominant format is already a reasoned choice,
 oftentimes an act of departure from the dominant player, and
 sometimes a political act. 
   
 I think you are missing the point: it's not simply a matter of the
 embedded fonts. If the brand new file format that you are creating
 wants to attract users it can never have less features than the one
 it wants to replace. Or at least it can not miss critical features.
 

 Network effect. Do you have any idea how many superior formats have
 been created but that never got adopted?

   
 Even if people want to switch for political reasons, I'm sure they
 don't want their work crippled...
 

 They don't, that's true. But don't mix the various purposes of formats.

 Best,
 Charles.

   
And an improvement still would be a drop down list of fonts used in the
current document allowing multiple select of just those fonts to embed,
making LO just that 1 step better.
steve

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] LO in government

[Steve Edmonds]

Hi. Read an interesting article here which may offer some hope in light 
of the news from Germany.
No idea of how close LO is to SaaS but could be a good standards based 
opportunity.

http://g-cloud.ulitzer.com/node/1716064

steve

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mailing List FAQ

[Steve Edmonds]

On 2011-05-26 15:15, NoOp wrote:
 On 05/24/2011 11:43 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
   
 Hi,

 2011/5/25 NoOp gl...@sbcglobal.net:
 
 Is there one?

 http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/
 doesn't show or refer to one.

   
 The german wiki page
 http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Local_Mailing_Lists/de has some
 additions and links for that. Maybe somebody should translate that to
 the english page.


 Volker


 
 I suppose. But that page is on
 http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Local_Mailing_Lists/ so even if
 translated and cleaned up wouldn't suffice.

 The place for such a FAQ should be on
 http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/ and apply to all
 locales. Suggestions:
 http://www.mozilla.org/about/forums/etiquette.html
 http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailinglists
 [Technical guidelines - in particular]
 http://www.openoffice.org/ml_guidelines.html

 And then once finalised/finalized should be posted in each mail list on
 a monthly basis so that list users are aware of
 etiquette/action/cooperation on the lists. This used to be common
 practice for mail lists in the past  helped resolve unnecessary posts
 regarding posting styles[1], etc.

 It's pretty hard to condem someone for top-posting, going way of topic,
 discussing religion, et al if there isn't a FAQ or some form of common
 guideline for user behaviour in the mail lists. Nor can you chastise
 someone for posting in the developer list regarding a valid user concern
 simply because you are not a developer etc. Example:
   If the developer list doesn't want common users posting what are
 considered valid user concerns (i.e., broken pre-release packages,
 failure to provide the same in packages that affect installed stable
 packages) without being insulted and chastised, then items like this
 should be included up front on the
 http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/ page as well.

 That said, here is a question; how can a common user be expected to
 possibly find http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Local_Mailing_Lists/ to
 begin with? I see no link on
 http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/ do you?




 [1]
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
   
A regular (monthly) post of the faq would be good.  In regards
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Local_Mailing_Lists/
it may not be linked anywhere because it seems empty There is currently
no text in this page.
steve

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mailing List FAQ

[Steve Edmonds]

On 2011-05-26 16:11, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
 On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 15:35 +1200, Steve Edmonds wrote:
   
   
 A regular (monthly) post of the faq would be good.  In regards
 http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Local_Mailing_Lists/
 it may not be linked anywhere because it seems empty There is currently
 no text in this page.
 steve

 
 Remove the final / and the link works.
   

Thanks, just clicked the link and didn't look.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] need new string in chart type dialog of line and XY chart for smoothing line with B-spline

[Steve Edmonds]

On 2011-05-25 11:38, Regina Henschel wrote:
 Hi Steve,

 Steve Edmonds schrieb:


 On 2011-05-25 10:44, Regina Henschel wrote:
 Hi all,

 with ODF1.2 the way a curve is smoothed by B-spline will change. See
 http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.2/cs01/OpenDocument-v1.2-cs01-part1.html,

 chapter 20.26.

 The current string Data points order does not describe this property
 correctly. In spec you find a B-spline interpolation with polynomials
 of degree p and this value p is entered in the dialog. But the text
 interpolation with polynomials of degree p is too long.

 Any idea for a short text, that describes this property?

 Kind regards
 Regina

 How many characters are available.

 Currently it is in English Data points order, that are 17
 characters, in German we have Ordnung für Stützpunkte, that are 23
 characters, Spanish has 28 characters and fills the dialog area
 completely.

 Interpolation Polynomial Degree
 Degree of Spline Polynomial
 Degree of Polynomial

 Degree of Polynomial
 Is that clear in content? Then it would be good. I have tried other
 languages with Google. They have similar length.


Hi. To someone who understands B-Splines and polynomials the Degree of
Polynomial should be clear. To others they will probably find the value
by trial and error and understanding is not important.
steve


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] need new string in chart type dialog of line and XY chart for smoothing line with B-spline

[Steve Edmonds]

On 2011-05-25 11:38, Regina Henschel wrote:
 Hi Steve,

 Steve Edmonds schrieb:


 On 2011-05-25 10:44, Regina Henschel wrote:
 Hi all,

 with ODF1.2 the way a curve is smoothed by B-spline will change. See
 http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.2/cs01/OpenDocument-v1.2-cs01-part1.html,

 chapter 20.26.

 The current string Data points order does not describe this property
 correctly. In spec you find a B-spline interpolation with polynomials
 of degree p and this value p is entered in the dialog. But the text
 interpolation with polynomials of degree p is too long.

 Any idea for a short text, that describes this property?

 Kind regards
 Regina

 How many characters are available.

 Currently it is in English Data points order, that are 17
 characters, in German we have Ordnung für Stützpunkte, that are 23
 characters, Spanish has 28 characters and fills the dialog area
 completely.

 Interpolation Polynomial Degree
 Degree of Spline Polynomial
 Degree of Polynomial

 Degree of Polynomial
 Is that clear in content? Then it would be good. I have tried other
 languages with Google. They have similar length.


And for the relevant help you could use Enter the degree of the
polynomial equation that you wish to use to define the B-spline, i.e. 1
for linear, 2 for quadratic, 3 for cubic, etc.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Font Substitution.

[Steve Edmonds]

Hi. Fonts again. Andale Sans was on my Suse from previous installs (OO) 
but not in LO on my mac. So My document from Suse LO tries to substitute 
and mucks it up.
It would be a great improvement if, on opening a document with missing 
fonts, you were advised and told what LO plans to substitute with and 
given the option to select another font. I have had this behavior with 
other software and it is a great help. Better still to have the option 
to include the font in the odt file.
If LO is going to be the cross platform office product that makes 
exchanging documents easy then the subject of handling handling missing 
fonts should be addressed.
Possibly an extension. You open the document, a font can't be found, you 
are told the proposed substitution, do you want to substitute another 
from your system or install a free font from the internet (browser opens).
For better adoption of LO the user experience needs to be that was 
clever, that was easy, thats great and not like the saying about 
doing business in China anythings possible, everything is difficult


Some thoughts anyway, steve

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-design] Templates, styles, outline and bullets/numbering

[Steve Edmonds]

On 30/04/11 4:18 AM, RGB ES wrote:

2011/4/29 Greggreg.lu...@gmail.com:

2011/4/28 Greggreg.lu...@gmail.com:

Hi,

I believe Writer's template, style, outline and numbering facilities are
in need of a rethink. The areas I think are weak, and this is by no
means a full list, are:
- The template organiser dialogue - who knows how to use it and what it's
really for?
- Style management - setting defaults, selecting style-sheets with some
idea of the stylistic/visual impact, changing styles
- Style usage - must become solid, robust and consistent. The
impossibility of getting working single type or mixed type (numbered or
bulletted) outline lists must be solved! At the moment, there seem to be
three or four ways to control list hierarchies and only some (or one)
  of them work. They are using the tab key, using the increase/decrease
indent button, using the list or numbering styles or using the bullets
and numbering's outline view. They each break the others in an
unpredictable way!

I think the user stories that press on the issues are something like:

1/ As a document writer, I want to ensure my document is easy to read
because all the paragraphs, headers and lists are consistent in their
style and outline level, according to their position in the document
hierarchy.

You can probably tell from this that I think we should strive to make
styles and outline levels so easy to use (while not diminishing their
full capabilities) that users predominantly use styles and not the
ad-hoc editing methods that render most docs inconsistent and difficult
to read.

2/ As a document writer, I want to be able to very easily select a
style-sheet to change the look of my document, so I have a good idea of
how the new style- sheet will look before I select it and I should not
have to do much custom editing to get a style I like.

3/As a style-sheet writer or modifier, I want to see a style-sheet view
of the world, that shows the hierarchy of styles and their setting
inheritance and overrides, so that I can easily build and maintain a
simple and logical style- sheet

e.g. style settings inheritance and override hierarchy (This indented
text illustrates the hierarchy, not a design ;o)

-- Default (All settings, including outline levels)
--Paragraph text (overridden or new settings)
--Heading (overridden or new settings)
--Heading1 (overridden or new settings)
--Heading2 (overridden or new settings)
--Heading3 (overridden or new settings)
--Header (overridden or new settings)
--FirstPageHeader (overridden or new settings)
--LeftHeader (overridden or new settings)
--RightHeader (overridden or new settings)
--Footer (overridden or new settings)
--FirstPageFooter (overridden or new settings)
--LeftFooter (overridden or new settings)
--RightFooter (overridden or new settings)
--List (overridden or new settings)
--BulletList1 (overridden or new settings)
--NumberList1 (overridden or new settings)
--BulletList2 (overridden or new settings)
--NumberList2 (overridden or new settings)
--BulletList3 (overridden or new settings)
--NumberList3 (overridden or new settings)

4/As a style-sheet writer or modifier, I want to lock a style-sheet to a
document template, so that only that style-sheet can be used, so the
documents produced are consistent.

(personally, I'd like to see a way to lock out custom edits for selected
doc templates too, for complete document consistency and compatibility -
this is especially powerful for collaboratively authored docs)

Aside from the implicated UI redesign, I think an extensive and
professional set of style-sheets would greatly help matters.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Greg

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@libreoffice.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted

At first I though that when you said style sheets you were talking
about templates... but you also use the word template. What do you
refer as style sheet?

I've never had problems with numbered lists (I mean, once I understood
how they work...), but I agree that they are not clear at all.
Most users I've seen tend to confuse numbered lists with outline
numbering, so a better distinction is needed.

Then you can't have pushed them much. As I said before At the moment, there
seem to be three or four ways to control list hierarchies and only some (or
one) of them work. They are using the tab key, using the increase/decrease
indent 

Re: [tdf-discuss] Observations of LibreOffice and our users..

[Steve Edmonds]

I agree here too.
I can manage to find and install what I need and my friends/family need
of LO so I have no problems.
I think target the non-technical masses, like firefox. LO 3.3.2 is
pretty much up to speed and it seems 3.4 will be suitable for prime time.
May be now is the time to step into the limelight.
steve

On 19/05/11 16:46, Xing Li wrote:
 Hi, I'm the administrator for FanFiction.Net and FictionPress.com and
 we have always pushed openoffice and now
 libreoffice to our users. However, we would like to give you guys some
 feedbacks from our users regarding the
 perception of libreoffice.

 1) Our members are mostly non-techy and heavy users of word processing 
 features.
 2A) Some members falsely believe we are profiting off somehow from
 this LibreOffice download.
 2B) Some members have false perception of LibreOffice somehow paying
 us to put a link to your site.
 3) (2) shows that LibreOffice is a new name with not a widely accepted
 recognition in the non-tech world.
 4) Overall, it's leading to lower adoption that I would like and a
 general false perception that I did not see with OpenOffice.

 Recommendations:

 Please retool the Libreoffice site just a little with more emphasis on
 the following:

 1) Abouse US should not be last item in the menu. LibreOffice has a
 branding problem and it should be first or second in
 terms of prioity on the menu.
 2) Make the site and especially the download page, which most of us
 link to, more consumer and not project centric.
 Right now, the whole site looks very business/corporate like.
 3) Emphasis Non-Profit much more. So that new users can
 differentiate free vs non-profit. There are
 lots of free software out there that have commerical tie-ins and
 LibreOffice needs to give more thoughts to this.

 For example the first sentence of About US page is:

 LibreOffice is community-driven and developed software which is a
 project of the not-for-profit organization, The Document Foundation.

 Why is not-for-profit the last thought of the sentence? Also no
 mention of free either. This sentence is written for developers and
 not end-users
 which is a oversight. Target the end-users first. Developers are smart
 enough to know who you guys are already.

 Maybe I'm being too detailed here but overall, I would like
 LibreOffice to do a better job of presenting itself via the website as
 a free end-user, consumer friendly software from an non-profit entity.

 It's more about presentations of LibreOffice to the end-user to give
 them a comfortable feeling when they visit the site for the first
 time. The download page is needlessly too complicated for end-users.
 Don't list sdk or source code builds. End-users have no idea what they
 are. Perhaps have a end-user/consumer-centric main site and a
 separate dev.libreoffice.org site.

 I would recommend a similar approach as taken by sites such as
 www.getfirefox.com or www.google.com/chrome.  Just give them one
 download link, one logo, one line intro to what it is and that is
 free, plus a friendly graphics and then a link to find out more if
 they want to.

 Just some suggestions. I love the software and would like to help it
 spread like summer weed. =)

 Regards,

 Xing

   

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice Math: There is no

[Steve Edmonds]

On 5/05/11 4:11 AM, M Henri Day wrote:

2011/5/4 Olivier Hallotolivier.hal...@documentfoundation.org


Thanks Mike for the tip

As I see, this character U+2204, does not exist in Opensymbol font, used by
Math by default. At least not in the displayed characters of Math UI.

So, if this symbol get implemented in Opensymbol, it will be trivial to
make it show in the Element window

Olivier


Olivier, in Linux operating systems such as, e g, Ubuntu, symbols like the ∄
symbol can easily be inserted in a LibreOffice document by holding the Ctrl
and Shift keys and pressing u (Ctrl+Shift+u) and then typing the hexdecimal
code (in this case) 2204 and pressing the space bar. But I agree, this type
of logic symbol should certainly be included in the list of special
characters in LibreOffice Math

Henri


Can't Ctl+Shift+u on my mac but can paste the character ∄ into math.
steve

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice Math: There is no

[Steve Edmonds]

On 2011-05-04 16:47, Jean-Baptiste Faure wrote:
 Le 03/05/2011 21:26, Olivier Hallot a écrit :
   
 Hi

 Does anybody knows if in LO Math there si a way to represent the
 mathematical symbol for There is no, which is a barred flipped E?

 Is it difficult to add it to the Elements windows? If a bug is already
 open, and one of you knows it, can I get the number to track it?

 Thanks in advance.
 
 Hi Olivier,

 Is a notin b the answer you asked for ?

 Best regards
 JBF

   

Is it ∃! or ∉
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_symbols in case
unicode above is not transmitted by the list server and please advise if
the symbol is there.
steve

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Help corrections

[Steve Edmonds]

Hi.
Noticed a small error in the Help. Is a bug filed for this or just a
discussion.
If you search for dock and click on Navigator you get Navigator help.
It states 

To undock the Navigator, double-click in a free area of the Navigator.


You need to CTL double click as shown below in another area of help.
To dock or undock the Navigator or the Styles and Formatting window,
hold down the Ctrl key and double-click on a grey area in the window.
Alternatively, press Ctrl+Shift+F10.
steve


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] QA - Bug Confirming: Volunteers required

[Steve Edmonds]

How was the session on triage. I suggest a latest working release
instead of a beta, I cannot afford my LO not to work as I need it every
day and are unsure if I can install a beta and a release copy at the
same time. I do not want to take the risk.

I have been confirming some bugs, but the process is not clear. The wiki
page http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugTriage says to add a comment
to state confirmed. There is no way to search for unconfirmed. The
status can not be changed to unconfirmed or confirmed or VERIFIED. The
keywords cannot be set CONFIRMED. The bugs list does not show the
whiteboard (where CONFIRMED can be entered). A report can be done but it
is a work around.

Can the bugzilla be adjusted to help people wanting to confirm bugs and
move them on to the next stage, I suggest the easiest is to fix the
status list.
steve

On 11/03/11 22:43, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
 Hi,

 I want to push interest in bug confirming.
 Currently we have lots of bugs with status UNOCNFORMED, waiting for
 confirmation:

 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedbug_status=UNCONFIRMEDproduct=LibreOffice


 And even more important: many NEW bugs also are still unocnfirmed,
 have lousy rare descriptions how to reproduce the problem, ...

 Bug confirming is really easy, required qualification only is:
 - some training using LibO
 - a computer, of course,
 - some knowledge in English language to understand the reports
 - A Bugzilla account.

 Newcomers should read hints on
  http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport
 before they start.

 Some really easy candidates whatr still are unotcued are:
 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31856
 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33636
 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33978
 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34093
 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34121

 Most important goal is a simple and clear statement whether it has
 been possible to reproduce the problem. Operating the Bugzilla
 Dahboard can be done by experienced QA staff.

 If you want you may add me to CC list with
 libreoff...@bielefeldundbuss.de

 I will check your results and initiate all further steps.

 Bug confirming is a really important issue, so please be courageous
 and try whether oyu can help. Currently our developers still have to
 spend too much time with checking bug reports, what will lack for
 improving code.

 Thanks a lot, and good luck

 Rainer Bielefeld


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] QA - Bug Confirming: Volunteers required

[Steve Edmonds]

On 17/04/11 2:20 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote

Snip.

I have been confirming some bugs, but the process is not clear.

So lets start with you - why haven't you been around on IRC? (Or if
you were around: why didn't you ask on IRC to be precise)

The timing was not good this session, I am UT +12hrs but had some 
appointments.



The wiki
page http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugTriage says to add a comment
to state confirmed. There is no way to search for unconfirmed.

Oh, there is - and I don't remember seeing a question on the IRC
channel regarding this.

On the (advanced) Search choose LibreOffice as product, and
unconfirmed as status, leave everything else blank (unless you want
to restrict the search further)


The
status can not be changed to unconfirmed or confirmed or VERIFIED. The
keywords cannot be set CONFIRMED. [...]

Ah, there's the problem - you need to use the advanced search form.

Those kind of questions would be welcome in a QA-session on IRC

Also, in the message you did fullquote, there is a link already that
shows the unconfirmed issues only:


On 11/03/11 22:43, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:

I want to push interest in bug confirming.
Currently we have lots of bugs with status UNOCNFORMED, waiting for
confirmation:

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedbug_status=UNCONFIRMEDproduct=LibreOffice

You can use that link of course as well - that is exactly what you get
when you just select LibreOffice as product and UNCONFIRMED as
status and leave everything else untouched.

This is may be where I am confused or misunderstanding. The above search 
returns 17 bugs UNCO, but there are many bugs marked NEW, such as from 
random *3963* https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3963. This 
is NEW and there is no indication it is CONFIRMED, therefore I assume it 
is UNCONFIRMED but it is not in the search. If I confirm this bug, how 
do I mark it CONFIFMED. There is no confirmed, only VERIFIED and only 9 
bugs are verified.
I would assume the status of a new bug is automatically UNCONFIRMED. If 
it is then confirmed, the bug is VERIFIED and the status can be set. Can 
the system of bug processing be clarified.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.

[Steve Edmonds]

All.
I tend to agree with Mike on many aspects.
We use 12 instances of LO in our business and I support more privately.
I inter-react with an educational institution and others predominantly 
MO, our business is mainly LO.


For a corporation or large entity to adopt LO it must be able to 
transfer MO docs well.
I find that probably 90% of MO docs I receive don't open in LO without 
need of reformatting, a corporation could not tolerate this. I found 
that LO does not time save (auto backup) .docs, a corporation would not 
tolerate that.


LO development is going great, but to be considered for corporate/large 
organisation environments some consideration of what is stopping LO 
adoption is required.
These are not show stoppers but a different emphasis on development and 
bug fixing. May be this is not the interest of developers and may be 
corporate environment is not the future of LO.


I have seen some discussion regarding the mapping out of the future of 
LO, LO design and developer focus. May be it is a good discussion to 
have soon.


steve

On 6/04/11 5:12 AM, Mike Hall wrote:

Charles,
I think an appreciation of this point is absolutely crucial to a 
successful product, which is why I bang on about it. And I'm only 
faithfully recording my own experience.


Unfortunately there is a difference in quality, which implicitly you 
seem to recognise. Yes, it's true that there have been several poor 
MSO releases, but in a large organisation those are not normally 
deployed on the corporate desktop until the problems are fixed. MS 
does eventually retreat on its silly ideas and there are, to all 
intents and purposes, almost bug free MSO versions so far as the vast 
majority of end users are concerned. This isn't the case with OOo/LibO 
- there has never been a release of such a quality that support costs 
could be contained at a realistic level. I wish there were and I can 
fully understand why this community would be very inclined to argue 
black is white here. Further, it's pretty frustrating to report bugs 
and find that they aren't fixed within a reasonable period. I don't 
think you would deny that that is a fairly common experience and 
complaint from OOo/LibO users. I see that on many bug reports.


My perception and experience of the choice of application software in 
large organisation is that it is much more rational and hard-headed 
than you imply. The main cost is not the licence, for which in any 
case large organisations generally pay very little per desktop. It's 
user support that is costly, ie overall cost of ownership.


Mike

On 05/04/2011 16:52, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:

Hello Mike
(since we're all top posting in this thread)...

To claim that MS Office is devoid of bugs is somewhat extravagant.
There have been several versions of MS Office that were plagued with
bugs; people complained but the products continued their roll-out. I
don't think MSOffice dominance can be attributed to a better quality
than OOo/LibO or any other contender, but to a specific framing of
the market environment better known as a monopoly. As someone who has
spent over 10 years analyzing competition in IT I can tell you most
governments are prone to external pressure and lobbying. Choice of one
office suite over another is decided almost never on quality, but on
price, peer-pressure, business advantage, personal ties and favours,
and more often than not, laziness and fear of the unknown.

This being said, LibreOffice does have bugs -just like any other
software- and we need to tackle them, so let me invite everyone here to
report bugs on our bug tracker, and if possible to propose a fix;
we'll deal with more bugs better and faster :-)

Best,
Charles.


Le Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:56:11 +0100,
Mike Hallmike.h...@onepoyle.net  a écrit :


Laszlo,
I worked for perhaps 15 years with various versions of MSO as both a
power user and as a senior manager with responsibility, inter alia,
for MSO support. I met all the senior international people at the
time, from MS and many other suppliers. During that time, whether
with short or long documents, I personally came across only 2
instances of genuine MSO bugs.

Since retirement 16 years or so ago, I have been almost exclusively
using and promoting OOo/LibO. I know what some of the technical
advantages are, and I appreciate them. However, each time I start a
major new activity or project, I run into a major deficiency or bug
which has typically taken me a day or more's work to understand,
write bug reports and work out how to get round. Most of those bugs
are still unfixed. This kind of 'wasted' effort simply does not occur
with MSO, or at least it didn't to me, nor did I hear complaints of
that kind from the thousands of end users I was to some degree
responsible for internationally.

In my professional opinion and with the maximum regret, I do not
believe that OOo/LibO has a product offering of adequate quality to
be cost-effective in a high-cost labour economy. The 

Re: [tdf-discuss] European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.

[Steve Edmonds]

On 2011-04-06 07:19, Ercole Carpanetto wrote:
 On 5 April 2011 21:08, Steve Edmonds steve.edmo...@ptglobal.com wrote:
   
 All.
 I tend to agree with Mike on many aspects.
 We use 12 instances of LO in our business and I support more privately.
 I inter-react with an educational institution and others predominantly MO,
 our business is mainly LO.

 For a corporation or large entity to adopt LO it must be able to transfer MO
 docs well.
 I find that probably 90% of MO docs I receive don't open in LO without need
 of reformatting,
 
 Before our switch we have the same problems with MO (we had a mixed
 enviroment with MO  2003 and a couple of MO XP) receiving files with a
 range from office 97 to 2007. I've found a better formatting aderence
 now with libreoffice (but maybe is due to the type of documents we
 use).

   
 a corporation could not tolerate this. I found that LO does
 not time save (auto backup) .docs, a corporation would not tolerate that.

 
 LO do autosave, only it do it in a slight different way: I use OOO
 (and LO now) since version the first version, and even if it crashes
 I've never loose a single document.

   
While editing .doc files I have not found any of them to have been auto
saved and recoverable. Same with OOO. .odt files have been autosaved,
but the autosaving deletes images from my odt files. So for me LO does
not have an autosave feature.



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.

[Steve Edmonds]

Hi Mark.
Possibly the environment that one works in has a significant result on
the problems encountered, and hence why it is hard to debug all problems
because they don't always arise until the environment changes.
I encounter little problem with spread sheets or power point, but mostly
with docs. May be that is the nature of the people I need to interreact
with and the way they use MO. Their pattern of use with MO creates
formats  that the filter developers have not encountered and hence my
problems.
It is good to have the discussion and bring out the issues so that they
can be assessed and addressed (one way or another).

steve

On 2011-04-06 07:38, Mark Preston wrote:
 Steve,

 While I understand your points, and Mike's, I can't say I agree with
 them particularly.

 On one issue we do agree and it is perhaps something to be looked at
 by the development team. That is the automatic timed save of documents
 while worked on. It is the case that should you lose a working
 document LibO or OoO will try to recover it next time it is started,
 but it does not always work nor assure a copy is made of all
 documents. As you say, that is not usually acceptable to businesses.

 However, for the rest I disagree. I have heard the claim about files
 from Microsoft Office needing to be changed in Open Office before but
 only rarely seen it to be true with a word-processed document.

 It is true that not all Powerpoint comes over to LibO accurately since
 LibO does not have available all the features that PPT can guarantee
 by being a closed and proprietary system. To me, this seems absolutely
 inevitable and not a fault at all.

 Similarly, I have heard about problems with Excel and especially the
 way pivots and data handling operations are carried out but also with
 rounding features to make the spreadsheets balance out. And yes,
 there are differences - although for the rounding features I have
 seen used are because there are technical errors with storage of some
 numbers in Excel that have been widely discussed on the web. I have to
 say that while I have seen that doing the same sort of thing to the
 Calc GUI results in a different operation, it is not yet clear to me
 whether the difference is the way that Calc is used or the way the
 same operation is carried out. Perhaps you could give us details?

 Most common of all though, is the complaint that my company macros
 don't work. Frankly, I am sick to death of hearing this one! MS macros
 are written in an MS language for MS features in an MS environment on
 MS software. There is no way in *hell* and Open Source software can
 pinch it, copy it, reverse engineer it, duplicate it in new code or
 anything else. If the macros are any use, then rewrite the damn things!

 On 05/04/2011 20:08, Steve Edmonds wrote:
   
 All.
 I tend to agree with Mike on many aspects.
 We use 12 instances of LO in our business and I support more privately.
 I inter-react with an educational institution and others predominantly
 MO, our business is mainly LO.

 For a corporation or large entity to adopt LO it must be able to
 transfer MO docs well.
 I find that probably 90% of MO docs I receive don't open in LO without
 need of reformatting, a corporation could not tolerate this. I found
 that LO does not time save (auto backup) .docs, a corporation would
 not tolerate that.

 LO development is going great, but to be considered for
 corporate/large organisation environments some consideration of what
 is stopping LO adoption is required.
 These are not show stoppers but a different emphasis on development
 and bug fixing. May be this is not the interest of developers and may
 be corporate environment is not the future of LO.

 I have seen some discussion regarding the mapping out of the future of
 LO, LO design and developer focus. May be it is a good discussion to
 have soon.

 steve

 On 6/04/11 5:12 AM, Mike Hall wrote:
 
 Charles,
 I think an appreciation of this point is absolutely crucial to a
 successful product, which is why I bang on about it. And I'm only
 faithfully recording my own experience.

 Unfortunately there is a difference in quality, which implicitly you
 seem to recognise. Yes, it's true that there have been several poor
 MSO releases, but in a large organisation those are not normally
 deployed on the corporate desktop until the problems are fixed. MS
 does eventually retreat on its silly ideas and there are, to all
 intents and purposes, almost bug free MSO versions so far as the
 vast majority of end users are concerned. This isn't the case with
 OOo/LibO - there has never been a release of such a quality that
 support costs could be contained at a realistic level. I wish there
 were and I can fully understand why this community would be very
 inclined to argue black is white here. Further, it's pretty
 frustrating to report bugs and find that they aren't fixed within a
 reasonable period. I don't think you would deny that that is a
 fairly common

Re: RE : [tdf-discuss] Re: Feature request - embed font

[Steve Edmonds]

On 22/03/11 06:44, aqualung wrote:
 O.K., so is everyone now in agreement that there is no legal problem
 embedding a font that explicitly licenses itself to be embedded?

 I am new here and am a bit mystified at the way discussion seems to move,
 with inapposite answers to comments and then the point gets lost along the
 way.

 This  https://www.adobe.com/type/browser/info/embedding.html Adobe page 
 lists the four levels of permissions granted (or not, as the case may be) by
 a font's license. (However, according to 
 http://forums.adobe.com/thread/634966?decorator=printdisplayFullThread=true
 this forum discussion , installable embedding is only a theoretical, not a
 practical option for lack of any software that actually performs this.

 Legal matters aside, I like the idea of an online font repository and
 downloading from there as needed.

   
This seemed good to me at first, but then I thought how do I make my
custom fonts and especially purchased fonts portable with my documents.
I am talking about me being able to edit my documents on my machines
without having to coordinate font libraries across Suse/OSX/Win. In a
business I could just flick the document to a secretary for printing and
not have to go to her machine and install the fonts required.
Without the font being packaged in the document the only solution would
then be to post them on line, encouraging  breaking the license terms,
unless I had a personal online font repository.
But then again the on-line solution has the problem of editing a
document offline (on the train on my laptop).

I am suggesting that packaging the font with the document be optional,
only for fonts where there is not a universal substitute, so that fonts
do not need to be packaged with every document and bloat the system.

As pointed out, it may not be possible to package fonts in the document
file because of the Open Document standard, although I would have though
it would have been flexible enough to enable packaging of future items,
otherwise it would be limiting to development and future inclusion of
say media or as of yet unpopularised formats.

Impress (from LO) doesn't seem to package media(audio/visual) and be
able to save as powerpoint,  but Impress (from OO) packages media within
the file in a media folder and is able to save as powerpoint. May be
fonts can be classed media and packaged in the media folder. Is the
presence of the media folder standards compliant.

steve




-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: RE : [tdf-discuss] Re: Feature request - embed font

[Steve Edmonds]

On 2011-03-22 12:35, Italo Vignoli wrote:
 On 03/21/2011 11:44 PM, Steve Edmonds wrote:

 As pointed out, it may not be possible to package fonts in the document
 file because of the Open Document standard, although I would have though
 it would have been flexible enough to enable packaging of future items,
 otherwise it would be limiting to development and future inclusion of
 say media or as of yet unpopularised formats.

 Fonts used for editing documents must be installed at operating system
 level (Windows, MacOS, Linux) and therefore they would not be
 available even if embedded in documents. In addition fonts have
 different metrics on different operating systems.
This must be why I had to delete Arial from my mac and replace it with
Arial from my Suse.

What about with OOO2 where fonts were available for OOO exclusively
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Font-FAQ#How_do_I_add_fonts_to_OpenOffice.org_2_exclusively

Fonts were installed in ~/.openoffice.org2/user/fonts/
So I was assuming that a font packaged in an odt file would be placed
somewhere similar on opening the odt file and then available exclusively
to LO when editing the document. This is where I used to place my custom
fonts and doesn't require admin access for font installation.

 This is the reason why fonts have never been embedded in any document
 format for editing (not even in old Microsoft proprietary formats,
 even if they were a memory dump), because if they are not installed
 there is no chance of having them available for editing.

 Font embedding in PDF is a completely different story. PDF is a
 document description format based on PostScript, and thus the engine
 in the software can use the embedded fonts to render them on screen
 thanks to the code developed by John Warnock (a genius developer, the
 inventor of PostScript and one of the founders of Adobe).

 This feature was introduced in PDF 2.0, because the first version was
 using Minion and Myriad, specific fonts with real time variable
 metrics which had to be installed at system level in order to mimic
 the fonts used to produce the document.

 I was working as a consultant for Adobe at that time, and I have been
 the PDF spokeperson for Europe for several years.

 It is true that many years have gone by, but fonts are handled by
 operating systems in the same way. If they are not installed in their
 specific folder at boot time, they cannot be used for editing documents.

 I hope this helps.


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] suggestion to improve libreoffice writer

[Steve Edmonds]

On 21/03/11 6:38 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:

On 2011-03-20 12:34 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:

On 3/20/11 5:18 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:

Adding the ability to have multiple documents as tabs in one window
would be great - as long as there is a choice.

Meaning, I can have multiple windows if I want, and/or drag-n-drop a tab
out into its own window (and vice-versa)... an option to set a default
(open new docs in tabs, or as separate windows) would be best...

Thats what I was tryign to get at allow it to be a customizable option
that can be turned on or off.

Apologies for it not being clear.

Still not really clear though...

Just so I'm clear, the option I mentioned would only be for the
*default* behavior (ie, when opening a new document, does it get opened
into an existing window as a new tab, or as a separate window).

You should still be able to move a tab to a separate window or
vice-versa on the fly whenever you want, without having to change an
option, just like you can with Firefox (and most other browsers now).


Would work for me, which bit of real estate would you take up with the tabs?
I would hope that if I opted to open in a new window I would not loose 
any real estate.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: RE : [tdf-discuss] Re: Feature request - embed font

[Steve Edmonds]

I suppose what I was thinking would be usefull was to have a directory 
within the odt file called fonts. LO would check here first for fonts 
called in the document. I could copy my custom TT or type 1 fonts here 
thereby making my document portable.
This seems relatively simple. More work is involved if a font management 
tool is desired (i.e. a panel listing fonts used in the document and 
tick box for Save with Document).


In regards the licensing issue, what is the difference between emailing 
a document (with the font stored within) and emailing the document + the 
font file. In both cases you have or have not broken the license 
(depending on the conditions)


This could even promote the use of free fonts, when you can't even 
transfer a document in Arial between Linux and Mac without loss of 
formatting it could be a big plus to be the only suite to be able to 
offer true document portability.
I could use Andale Sans or Albany AMT and not have to worry about how it 
would format on Windows. I would not be encouraged to copy licensed 
fonts from my windows machine to my linux/mac machines to be certain 
documents created in linux/mac formatted correctly on windows


steve

On 21/03/11 7:46 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:

Hi.

Font embedding reloes on the format used by the suite. Currently only PDF
has this ability.

Best,

Charles.

Le 20 mars 2011, 3:21 PM, aqualungxfekdcugj...@mailinator.com  a écrit :

Jason Corfman-2 wrote:But embedding a font into a document  for
editing purposes quickly sli...
Isn't it the font that determines what you can do with it?

Fonts that allow embedding are either editable or installable. Surely
there is no legal issue if the font explicitly allows you to embed it in one
of these two ways? When a font does not explicitly allow it then a software
should not make it possible, either; that goes without saying.

--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Feature-request-embed-font-tp2679885p2705927.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.orgArchive:
http://listarchives...



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] suggestion to improve libreoffice writer

[Steve Edmonds]

On 21/03/11 8:23 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:

On 2011-03-20 3:05 PM, Steve Edmonds wrote:

Would work for me, which bit of real estate would you take up with the
tabs?
I would hope that if I opted to open in a new window I would not loose
any real estate.

I'd say they should work - again - similar to how Firefox works...

An option to hide the tab bar when there is only one tab in use...

I'd also prefer the choice of horizontal or vertical, because I'd prefer
vertical (on the left side, like I do now with Firefox). Horizontal
screen real estate is much more precious that vertical, especially on a
smaller screen...

Obviously, it is impossible (as far as I can see) to add tabs without
losing *some* screen real estate...


Unless you had popup tabs on roll over.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] suggestion to improve libreoffice writer

[Steve Edmonds]

On 19/03/11 03:18, Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
 Charles Marcus wrote:
 On 2011-03-17 4:06 PM, Steve Edmonds wrote:
 Hi.
 This is a good point to discuss and I have posted to
 discuss@documentfoundation.org also.
 I prefer separate windows because I can compare and proof
 documents/sheets side by side and mouse focus in linux makes scrolling
 without changing window focus possible. I would be disappointed if LO
 went to tabs.

 Shouldn't be a problem as long as it worked similarly to Firefox...
 meaning, it uses tabs but does not preclude the use of separate windows.
 So, you should be able to drag a tab to a new window, or vice-versa...

 Best of both worlds...

 Until Unity and/or GONME3 if I understand their changes correctly. 
 Each open application is full screen and almost no way to get around
 it currently.

 This is not intended to start a flame war or a new thread but a heads
 up for those that like multiple windows visible at once.  I just
 finished a couple of articles that lead me to believe they are taking
 a quite a few steps towards glitz and away from real desktop
 functionality.

Gnome and I have never got on, KDE for me, I have 8 windows visible now
and more lurking in the background just waiting. How will Gnome3 handle
multi head?. May be allow multiple windows split by head. Anyway, the
option of tabs would be good for Gnome and just generally for users who
run all applications maximised.
In which case why not add tabs for any other open LO instances (calc,
impress,..).

steve

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] QA - Bug Confirming: Volunteers required

[Steve Edmonds]

Hi.
Confirming bugs may be one small part I can contribute.
I have looked at the bugs list when I filed one myself.

The procedure for filing a bug
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport suggests searching for bugs
first, the search tool is not user friendly.
Also that link suggests discussing the bug in users list for confirmation.
It would be useful if the procedure for bug confirmation could be listed
clearly. Looking at the bugs it is not clear how a bug is moved from NEW
to UNCONFIRMED to CONFIRMED.

Cheers,
steve

On 11/03/11 22:43, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
 Hi,

 I want to push interest in bug confirming.
 Currently we have lots of bugs with status UNOCNFORMED, waiting for
 confirmation:

 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advancedbug_status=UNCONFIRMEDproduct=LibreOffice


 And even more important: many NEW bugs also are still unocnfirmed,
 have lousy rare descriptions how to reproduce the problem, ...

 Bug confirming is really easy, required qualification only is:
 - some training using LibO
 - a computer, of course,
 - some knowledge in English language to understand the reports
 - A Bugzilla account.

 Newcomers should read hints on
  http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport
 before they start.

 Some really easy candidates whatr still are unotcued are:
 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31856
 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33636
 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33978
 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34093
 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34121

 Most important goal is a simple and clear statement whether it has
 been possible to reproduce the problem. Operating the Bugzilla
 Dahboard can be done by experienced QA staff.

 If you want you may add me to CC list with
 libreoff...@bielefeldundbuss.de

 I will check your results and initiate all further steps.

 Bug confirming is a really important issue, so please be courageous
 and try whether oyu can help. Currently our developers still have to
 spend too much time with checking bug reports, what will lack for
 improving code.

 Thanks a lot, and good luck

 Rainer Bielefeld


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] QA - Bug Confirming: Volunteers required

[Steve Edmonds]

On 17/03/11 22:25, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
 Steve Edmonds schrieb:

 Also that link suggests discussing the bug in users list for
 confirmation.

 Hi,

 that might be some misunderstanding. Discussion in mailing list is
 recommended if
 - there is a well founded suspect that there is no bug, but some
   user error or LibO maloperation
 - the reporter has problems to use bugzilla
 - the reporter hass problems with English language.

 It would be useful if the procedure for bug confirmation could be listed
 clearly. Looking at the bugs it is not clear how a bug is moved from NEW
 to UNCONFIRMED to CONFIRMED.

 May be you can modify and improve  the Wiki text to avoid such
 misunderstanding?

Would it be something like;
Discussion in the us...@libreoffice.org mailing list is recommended if
- there is a well founded suspect that there is no bug, but some
  user error or LibO maloperation
- the reporter has problems using bugzilla to file a bug
- the reporter has problems with English language.

When filing a bug clearly describe the bug and the method to reproduce
the bug.
Set the Status to NEW
Enter UNCONFIRMED in the Whiteboard area.



 That's a misunderstanding. NEW does not mean New Report, but New
 confirmed Bug, has to be fixed:
 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#status
 So the normal order is UNCONFIRMED - NEW (what means Confirmed)
 Unfortunately Bugzilla's default status is NEW, not UNCONFIRMED, and
 it seems there is no way to modify that with the current Bugzilla
 version.

I have a choice of NEW, ASSIGNED, RESOLVED in the status drop down. and
a new bug certainly is not Assigned or resolved so as you say New is the
default.
 Unfortunately there is no way NEW - Unconfirmed for too rare or not
 reproducible bug reports. If I can't confirm such a wrong NEW report
 I add UNCONFIRMED to Whiteboard and NEEDINFO to Keywords:
 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrkeywords=NEEDINFOquery_format=advancedkeywords_type=allwordsstatus_whiteboard=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWproduct=LibreOffice


 Thank you for your contributions, two-man rule is very useful to
 prevent us from wasting developer manpower.

 If you can confirm observation and think that all important
 information is included into the report, you should change status to
 NEW (or delete UNCONFIRMED from Whiteboard and NEEDINFO from keyword.
As the status is already NEW for a new bug, on confirming a bug should
UNCONFIRMED from Whiteboard be changed to CONFIRMED from Whiteboard.
May be I can add a small section in the wiki on confirming a bug

 Best regards

 Rainer Bielefeld

Cheers,
steve

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] suggestion to improve libreoffice writer

[Steve Edmonds]

Hi.
This is a good point to discuss and I have posted to
discuss@documentfoundation.org also.
I prefer separate windows because I can compare and proof
documents/sheets side by side and mouse focus in linux makes scrolling
without changing window focus possible. I would be disappointed if LO
went to tabs.

May be both options could be supported. The menu FileOpen could be
FileOpen AS tab or window. A bit like FF gives you the option.

steve

On 18/03/11 00:41, abdel ghaffar ettobi wrote:
 Dear Team LibreOffice

 Firstly I congratulate you for establishing your new company and for
 the tremendous efforts you make to improve Libreoffice.
 I am a Moroccan engineer who uses free software that makes a lot of
 time and openoffice, before the onset of LIbreOffice, was one of the
 solutions I have adopted to carry out my work at the office or at home.

 My suggestion is to have Libreoffice writer with tabs, for example I
 hope that when I open a new document I will not have a new window, but
 rather a new tab in the same window.

 I ask you to consider my request, because I see with this method there
 will be a good ergonomics and greater visibility.

 Cordially
 ETTOBI Abdelghaffar


 ___
 LibreOffice mailing list
 libreoff...@lists.freedesktop.org
 http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
   

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Bug or new feature

[Steve Edmonds]

Thanks, I get by with PS2PDF but don't get the table of contents working.
With SVG support, may be a conversion of my EPS's to SVG will solve the
problem.
Cheers, steve

On 15/03/11 21:04, Fernand Vanrie wrote:
 Steve,

 I filed 2 years ago a issue on OO for that.
 Indeed it blocks a lot of efforts made to make PDF happen, and the
 tool is still  useless for many (professional) users. EPSvector  is
 still the standard for all graphic applications.
 Like Micheal says, the code needs a bit more love :-)

 Greetz

 Fernand
 LO, also OO do not create pdf's correctly from documents containing
 EPS's.
 This occurs on 3.3.1 on Suse and OSX.
 The PDF is not created with the vector data of the EPS but the low
 resolution bitmap (if there is one) used for positioning.
 To create a correct PDF I must print to file (PS) and use PS2PDF.

 Is this a bug?

 steve




-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[tdf-discuss] Feature request - embed font

[Steve Edmonds]

Hi.
I have been a SO, OO, now LO user for many years.
One area where I frequently encounter hassle is with layout changes due 
to different fonts on different PC's. Most of my documents are data 
sheets or manuals and include special fonts (LCD display, etc.) and even 
with standard fonts there can be problems.
It would be very usefull if there was an option to embed a font in a 
document.


Most recently I deleted my Arial font off my Mac and installed the Arial 
from my Suse because the Mac Arial had different characters and kerning.


Embedding a font is a big bonus for a suite that wants to be truly 
system portable.


steve

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[tdf-discuss] Bug or new feature

[Steve Edmonds]

Hi.
LO, also OO do not create pdf's correctly from documents containing EPS's.
This occurs on 3.3.1 on Suse and OSX.
The PDF is not created with the vector data of the EPS but the low 
resolution bitmap (if there is one) used for positioning.

To create a correct PDF I must print to file (PS) and use PS2PDF.

Is this a bug?

steve

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***