Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index


I agree with Gerald, and want to add that in Windows (where the
problem of hidden extensions plays) the difference is very clear
because of the icons. .odt.pdf files normally should have an icon of
acrobat or other pdf-software. In the case you link .odt.pdf
specifically with LibreOffice this is not the case any more, but as
well not relevant any more.

2011/8/5 Gerald Leppert <gleppert@gmx.de>:
Hi all,

I am using this opportunity to introduce myself. My name is Gerald and I am
working at the University of Cologne in Germany in social sciences and
economics. I have been intensively using LibreOffice (since 1995 in its
first incarnation as StarOffice) and I closely followed its development
since that time. After OpenOffice.org had been founded I started
contributing from the perspective of an end user or something you might call
a heavy user. Last year, I was very pleased that the product even turned
"libre" around an active developers and users community. So far, I
contributed to the wiki (user name "Gerald"), filed and interacted on some
dozen of bugs in the LO bugzilla, contributed the thesis templates in the OO
templates repository, contributed to the German spell check dictionary and
filed some enhancement requests in the LO bugzilla.

Coming to the point of enhancement requests: After LibreOffice's inception,
I started contributing to the fast growing EasyHacks wiki page. Quite soon
it was mentioned that it would be better and that it is planned to move all
easy hacks to the bugzilla. Hence, I subsequently transferred the easy
hacks, which I had entered, from the wiki to bugzilla. After that, I added
some obvious easy hacks directly to bugzilla.

Generally, my experience with enhancement requests in the LO bugzilla (mine
or requests from others) has been that there is currently very little to no
feed back, review, discussion or comments made to enhancement requests. IMHO
this situation is a bit sad and I hope that this will be changing in the
future.

Improvements to hybrid PDF: As mentioned in the bug 39168, the hybrid PDF
feature is one of the killer features in LibreOffice. However, its
implementation has some practical and usability problems out of those most
had been already raised in the OpenOffice.org bugzilla. However, most of
them can be easily improved in terms of usability and handling. This was my
intention of the three enhancement requests made to hybrid PDFs (bug 39167,
bug 39168, bug 39169) and I was glad that Gabor liked the idea and took the
initiative to start working on two of these easy hacks.

Defending bug 39168: As described in the bug entry, the current file ending
"pdf" is suboptimal and hybrid PDFs need to be made more visible to the
user. In the current situation, the hybrid PDF feature is much less useful
than it could be and in many cases it is even counterproductive (i.e. users
who try to open 'real' PDF files in LibreOffice assuming that they are
hybrid PDFs.) There is indeed no hint to the user what file actually is
hybrid pdf. By the way, the file ending ".pap.pdf" is exactly how it is
handled in Papyrus (www.papyrus.de) where the idea of hybrid PDFs was first
implemented. Marking bug 39168 as 'invalid' without adding any criticism or
comment to the bug entry itself is - in my opinion - inappropriate.

Best greetings,
Gerald


Am 05.08.2011 15:28, schrieb Kohei Yoshida:

On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 14:48 +0200, Andras Timar wrote:

Hi,

2011/8/4 Astron<heinzlesspam@googlemail.com>:

I am also not too keen on the ".pdf" file extension being changed to
".odf.pdf"—there will be enough users who still have the "hide known
file extensions" option of Windows on and thus will only see ".odf".
Additionally, two file extensions look awful.

The general problem is that everyone can open a bug in bugzilla and
mark it as easy hack, then someone comes and fix it, and it turns out
in the review phase that the original idea is not so bright. See
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39168
Do you think that fdo#39168 is invalid? Then we should close it as
invalid.

Yeah, I don't like the fact that someone who is not a known contributor
comes along and file an EasyHack even without a discussion on the
developer list.  We don't even know the name of gleppert@gmx.de the
reporter of this EasyHack and several others that I've seen.

To gleppert@gmx.de, could you introduce yourself on our developer list,
and tell us some brief discussion on the EasyHacks that you've filed in
the past?  Thanks!

Kohei



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


Context


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.