I should mention that on any Save [As ...] LO will automatically generate new Configuration2/...,
Thumbnails/thumbnail.png, manifest.rdf, and settings.xml files along with the others. I think it
is differences elsewhere that will be clues to the problem.
It also helps if you can determine the most-recent version of LO that does *not* treat your
document as corrupt.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 09:47
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Subject: RE: [libreoffice-users] Document 'corrupt' for LibreOffice, opens fine with other
OOo-based software
You should be able to delete all of Configurations2/..., Thumbnails/thumbnail.png, and
manifest.rdf without any harm whatsoever, so long as the related<manifest:file-entry> elements
are deleted from META-INF/manifest.xml.
You should probably *not* keep the settings.xml if you are creating a different content.xml file
(just in case).
You might check on consistency of version attribute occurrences and their values. For ODF 1.2
documents, it is expected that there will be a consistent use of "1.2" in a variety of places.
If there are any missing version attributes or ones with conflicting values of "1.0" or "1.1",
that might be a problem as well.
This is a bit trickier. What version of ODF are you specifying in your "template" and the
subsequent manipulations?
It could be none of these that are derailing LO. It could be some sort of problem being caught
in the resolution of styles, or some problem where automatic styles are involved.
SOMETHING ELSE TO TRY
When LO says the document is corrupted, do you have an option to attempt "recovery" or "repair"?
When you exercise that option, can you save the result and reopen *that* successfully in LO ? I
think you have done this according to your other report.
If that works, you then need to figure out what it is that is different in the repaired one and
the one that was declared corrupt. Look at the manifest and the files that are present, and in
the root element opening tags for styles.xml and content.xml. (Notice the office:version
attributes and any manifest:version attributes as well.) Check to see whether automatic styles
were added to content.xml where there are none (?) for your "corrupted" document.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Brunel [mailto:eric.brunel@pragmadev.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 01:25
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Document 'corrupt' for LibreOffice, opens fine with other
OOo-based software
[ ... ]
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
successful effort.
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 -
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.