I come from the emacs/LaTeX side of the road. In the past, I had
looked into the master document issue with M$-Word, and as near as
I could tell, if you were looking for some means of corrupting a
document, making it part of a master document would at some point
corrupt it.
Looking at the OO.o side of things (LibreOffice wasn't yet
around), it seemed like master documents weren't recommended.
They might not be as bad as M$-Word master documents, but hardly
like LaTeX master documents which just work. Is this something
that LibreOffice would like to see? Or are so few people using
LibreOffice even knowledgable about master documents, that it
isn't on anyone's radar?
In terms of unoconv, I'm running 3.3.2 on Debian/unstable. I had
a bunch of .doc files I needed to translate into .odt (so that I
could use the perl module OpenOffice::OODoc with them). I got the
files off a CD, and it turns out that the first two
(asciibetically) files are corrupt. Asking unoconv to convert all
of them, had unoconv fail because the first file was corrupt.
There were only 70 files, so I did the conversions by hand. Did I
miss some switch to have unoconv skip corrupt input?
Gord
Context
- [Libreoffice] Master Documents? (and something about unoconv) · Gordon Haverland
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.