[Libreoffice-ux-advise] Fwd: [PATCH] Bug 39167

[Thorsten Behrens]

Astron wrote:
> While I can understand the intention of the bug, to me the proposed
> solution sounds like bad English. I am also unsure if the change
> proposed expresses the option properly (and if this option can be
> explained properly in three words).
> I think a better solution would be to keep "Create hybrid file", but
> add an explanation two-liner like "Saves an ODF version of this
> document inside the PDF, making the PDF easily editable in
> %PRODUCTNAME." (Note that the original patch hard-coded the
> application name!)
> 
Hi Astron,

can you propose an alternative patch in the bug report?

> 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.
> 
I can't see any proposal in the bug you reference (though Jenei
talks about adding it) - but I agree with your assessment. Besides
that, the file is no proper ODF file (i.e. removing the .pdf
extension and throwing it at other odf-processing applications will
not work), so the name may not match user expectations.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-ux-advise/attachments/20110805/512ec217/attachment.pgp>