On 4 juin 12, at 23:39, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
Corruption could indeed be triggered by there being an inconsistency
between META-INF/manifest.xml and what is present in the package.
It is interesting if that is a complaint about Configurations/.../
current.xml (usually a zero-length useless component), which is
private information from the producer that is not defined by ODF and
can't be meaningfully used by any software other than the producer.
For the most part, that material appears to be gratuitous and
The missing Thumbnails/thumbnail.png is also benign.
Working from memory in order to reply quickly, I believe that there
*IS* an ODF requirement for every stream in the package (a Zip) to
be accounted for in META-INF/manifest.xml except the manifest
itself, mimetype, and anything else in META-INF/ (except if it is
meant to be encryptable). I suspect the specifications are silent
concerning META-INF/manifest.xml entries that have no corresponding
stream in the Zip. I need to confirm the facts.
Thanks for the hints. Worked on that, but no luck so far: I removed
the references to the non-existing files and directories in the META-
INF/manifest.xml file, but the document is still reported as corrupt.
Then I did the reverse: keeping the existing META-INF/manifest.xml
file and copying all the missing files and directories from the
repaired document: LO still says the document is corrupt… I've checked
the manifest.xml file thoroughly, and it does reference exactly all
the files in the document, except everything in the META-INF directory
itself and the mimetype file.
I would not be surprised if this tightening of consistency with the
manifest is for purposes of improved detection of tampering and the
possible incidence of a security exploit of one kind or another.
There is a practice in security cases to avoid providing details
since it provides too much information for someone attempting to
craft an exploit. That's a stretch in this case.
This was what came to my mind too…
It would be useful to soften the message to one of "There are
inconsistencies and it is possible the document is corrupted." The
request for permission to attempt correction by eliminating the
inconsistencies should be quite clear. It would also be valuable to
report whether there was any apparent data loss or that repair did
not involve loss of anything critical to the document. Encouraging
a save-as of the repaired document to a different location would
also be handy in restoring the confidence of the user in the
Well again, telling the reason why the document is reported as corrupt
would be a great help too. As it is now, we have to rely on wild
guesses to figure out what to correct in the generated document, and
that's a long and painful thing to do…
Anyway, thanks a lot again for your answers.
- Eric -
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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