On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Andy Brown <a...@the-martin-byrd.net>wrote:
> Marcus (OOo) wrote: > > Am 07/18/2011 10:04 PM, schrieb David McKay: > >> > >> On 18/07/11 20:50, Andy Brown wrote: > >>> Mathias Bauer wrote: > >>>> On 18.07.2011 20:21, Mathias Bauer wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> 1) xpdf (GPL'd) is a run dependency, this is linux/unix > >>>>>> specific. PDFBox may be a replacement. > >>>>> This component is used for the pdf import extension, not for OOo > >>>>> itself. > >>>>> > >>>>> The pdf import extension is not built by default, there is a > configure > >>>>> switch to enable it in the build. In that case xpdf would be > >>>>> required. I > >>>>> think that this already fulfils the legal requirements that building > >>>>> lgpl code must be "opt-in". So as far as I can see, this is not a > >>>>> "to do". > >>>> Giving it one more thought: it would be still a to do if we wanted to > >>>> have a pdf import extension released by Apache. So perhaps a to do > with > >>>> minor priority. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Mathias > >>> If we do include the pdf import extension I would like to see it > >>> rewritten to do a better job of importing. I have seen to many post in > >>> the forums about the way that it works. My suggestion would be to drop > >>> it completely. > >>> > >>> Andy > >>> > >> A lot of the issues I see on the forum regarding the PDF extension are > >> to do with expectation. People seem to think this extension is going to > >> give them a full-blown PDF editor with the capabilities of the Adobe > >> tools. When they discover it is for tiny corrections and typo fixes they > >> feel let down. That's not to say there aren't any bugs in it, there may > >> well be. But I don;t think the PDF extension was positioned or described > >> sufficiently to provide users with the correct expectations. > > > > The intension was to show what is possible. On the extension website is > > a note that the Beta status was left due to the positive notes we got > > about the extension. But this is no promiss that its quality is like the > > import filter for the documents formats for MS Word & Co. > > > > The solution is not to remove the extension but to improve it's work. > > > > Marcus > > > > If it can be improved then it maybe worth the effort. I still think an > OCR engine would do the work. > i think if we can fix the legal issues with the dependencies we should keep it and maybe somebody will work on it. It provides at least a minimal import which is not enough for some people but is good enough for many others. It's always the same that you hear more concerns than positive feedback. And if somebody will develop something on OCR it's even better and we get a further enhancement... Juergen > > Andy >
