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

[Joop Kiefte]

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 at 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 at 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 at gmx.de the
>> reporter of this EasyHack and several others that I've seen.
>>
>> To gleppert at 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 at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
>