<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - [FILEOPEN] Support for opening same document twice as read only with command line switch" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116827#c8">Comment # 8</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - [FILEOPEN] Support for opening same document twice as read only with command line switch" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116827">bug 116827</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:khanson679@gmail.com" title="Kenneth Hanson <khanson679@gmail.com>"> Kenneth Hanson</a> <pre>I'm confused, and I think it's because the word "copy" is being used for two different things. Nick, do you want multiple *views* of the same document, or would multiple *copies* (that is, separate files with the same content) be adequate? Command line switch -n gives you the latter. There is no point in making them read-only in this case, because they can't affect each other or the original. My suspicion is that what you really want is multiple *views* (or instances) of the same document, so that all remain in sync as you edit them. This would require a new command line switch. Is this right? Then, combining this another switch (current "view" or a new one with a better name) to make the new views read-only from the start would be a separate change. Certainly this would be the logical thing to do. But do you actually need this? Your original comment makes it sound unnecessary.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>