Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
Hi, I've looked in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_power_zero#Zero_to_the_power_of_zero and for me it seems very reasonable to keep the old behaviour, as according to this article many math and other software treats 0^0 = 1 (see the paragraphs under "Treatment on computers"). According to the German wikipedia Donald Knuth refuses to define 0^0=undefined but claims = 1 because otherwise many mathematical theorema would need special case treatments. So also mathematicians define 0^0=1. So let 0^0=1 in AOO. Günter Marxen Am 10.02.2013 00:43, schrieb Rob Weir: On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: A good practical example of backwards-incompatible changes in version 4.0 is the behavior of Calc while computing 0 ^ 0. You can find a long issue, with different points of view, about this at: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=114430 but in short: - Obviously, 0 ^ 0 is an illegal operation in mathematics and the result is undefined/invalid Spreadsheets are used by businessmen and not only mathematicians. Stability is important to them. Getting different results in different versions of OpenOffice would be a very scary thing. - In 3.4.1, "=0 ^ 0" returns 1 - In 4.0, as patched by Pedro (see issue), "=0 ^ 0" would return an error - According to ODF, valid results are 0, 1, error In other words, the results we were giving before were entirely valid. - We gain interoperability since Excel returns an error too Microsoft has gone decades with treating the year 1900 as a leap year. Should we? - We lose backwards compatibility if someone was relying on the fact that OpenOffice returns 1 as the result of "=0 ^ 0" Correct. The fact is we have returned 1 for this calculation for over a decade. Whether mathematicians think it is right or wrong (and they do not all agree), that is what we did. So changing it now has the potential to break real user spreadsheets. So this is a serious change. I'm OK with the proposed change, provided we advertise it in the release notes. I'm not aware of any cases where someone is actively using the fact that in Calc 0 ^ 0 evaluates to 1, and even if someone did, I would say that his spreadsheets should not compute 0 ^ 0 at all. A side benefit would be For what advantage? Better Microsoft interop? OK. That is reasonable. But I would not support a similar change merely because it amuses the mathematically curious. that school students quickly wanting to find out what is the result of 0 ^ 0 would be told the truth (it's an error) instead of being presented with a numeric result and no warnings. (Then the student would go on and write "= - 2 ^ 2" and have a lot of fun, but this is out of scope here). We need to take our responsibility as stewards of OpenOffice seriously. And that means dealing with the fact that we have millions of users and many millions of documents out there created with past versions of OpenOffice. We can't just change something because one person feels like it. Otherwise someone else can just change this function back at a later date because they feel like it. (ODF says 0 is also a permitted value. Maybe someone wants to change to that?) We need to discuss these kinds of changes. Changing the behavior of a Calc function, without prior discussion on the list, is entirely unacceptable. Maybe this was not clear before, but as I stated in my other note, I consider all changes that break backwards compatibility of public API's and interfaces, including spreadsheet formulas, to be controversial. They should require Review-then-Commit. Of course, having this discussion now, even after the code was checked in, and starting to add info the Release Notes, is good progress. But I want to make sure we're all on the same page as to why such changes are critical to have reviewed. Is there consensus that this is a reasonable backwards-incompatible change, or compelling reasons to revert it? I already gave my concerns for accepting such changes: 1) We need Release notes. 2) We need Test cases Dennis contributed the first. It would be great to have a test document attached to the issue so we can verify that other aspects of the POWER() and associated ^ operator were not modified as well. I can come up with something and attach it to the BZ issue. Regards, -Rob Regards, Andrea.
Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
Hi, I reply to this mail, because I have some remarks to Andrea's statements (see below). But please excuse, if I (as german) perhaps use not always the right english words/expressions/definitions.) But first: Norbert Thibaud has cleared the mathematical questions and shown, that statements like Petros "0^0 = 1 is NOT mathematically correct." are meaningless. 0^0 is a "shortcut" or "symbol" for something meaningfull in special cases or models. Mathematic is a set of theories that has (at least) 2 great sectors: Theoretical/pure mathematics and applied mathematics which are different in methodology. "Pure" models or theories are based on axioms and definitions. Axioms must be "complete" and not "contradictory" but are otherwise "free". Definitions have to be reasonable (and helpfull). Statements/proofs (if derived correctly out of the axioms) are "true" only in the respective model. In other models they make no sense. As the definition of 0^0 = 1 is _not_ wrong and not unreasonable (false is a wrong category in this case), for me the problems reduces to: Are there more (and "heavier") advantages than disadvantages when changing the behaviour in Calc? The whole line of OOo-versions (I have tested also with StarOffice 7 and 8, if necessary I can also test with V5.2 but I think it's not worth the time to install etc.) defines 0^0=1. So generations of Calc-Spreadsheets rely on this even if only a very few may explicitly use this features. On the other side only one advantage was cited: The compatibilty with Excel. For me, the backward-compatibility is worth more. (See also my comment to 5) below.) Am 13.02.2013 01:00, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: The objective is to achieve consensus. I believe it is clear that there is no consensus on the proposed change and the proposal fails. I still have to see some credible arguments here, since most of the feedback was misplaced. What we learned so far is: 1) Nobody so far exhibited a spreadsheet that would be broken by the new behavior. Rob has one, which was even published, so I'm sure he can and Norbert has given another Example where the old definition allows to model the correct mathematical behaviour for x^y. And you forget the many generations of older spreadsheets. share it for everybody to have a look. Even better, we have a fantastic collection of Calc templates at http://templates.openoffice.org/en/taxonomy/term/3923 ; seeing one of those templates break would help. 2) Everybody feels the need to say something about 0 ^ 0, but threads like this one are not pleasant to read. If you have nothing to say, please don't say anything. And if you have a lot to say, please limit yourself to what's strictly needed. Especially, undoing a volunteer's work without some concrete (in ODF format, in this case!) reasons is something the project must avoid. Generally I agree with "must avoid". But I did not see a discussion, if this change shouldt be done. 3) Mathematics and the standards are two different worlds. If a standard is mathematically wrong, change the standard and come back. That is false: The standard is mathematically correct. 4) We implement a standard, ODF. There 0 ^ 0 can legitimately be evaluated to 0, 1 or an error. 5) We read another standard, OOXML. There 0 ^ 0 can only be evaluated as an error; the fact that OpenOffice will evaluate 0 ^ 0 from a XLSX file to 1 is a bug. This is false: It is no bug! If Excel were the standard it would be true. And if, then calc must also implement the leap-year bug. (And I think nobody would want to implement such an error.) But true is, that Calc now is not Excel-compatibel in this case which leads to the core-question "backwards-comp. vs. Excel comp.". 6) Anyone whose spreadsheets depend on 0 ^ 0 being evaluated to 1 (or to zero, or to an error for that matter) has entered the dangerous world of "implementation-defined" behavior: even if you save in a standard format I'm a little bit confused. Everthing in applications is "implementation-defined" what else? like ODF, your spreadsheet depends on a particular ODF implementation (e.g., on the specific version of OpenOffice you used). Also the change would be "implementation-defined" and the behaviour would shurely depend on the OOo-Version used. Based on 5 and 6 I would actually still believe that it's good to evaluate 0 ^ 0 to error (so that we fix the bug in 5 and we choose the most strict behavior in 6). But I fully agree with Marcus in saying this issue is much smaller than the discussion around it, so I can surely change my opinion if I finally see some real-world spreadsheets impacted by the change. When we have those, also Pedro will likely see reasons for reverting the change. In short: provide concrete examples and everybody will be happy. Making controverse changes against many good reasons if not somebody else proves that it is negative, is no good collabo
Re: Draft blog post: International Mother Language Day 2013 -- Translations requested
Hi Rob,
as I was several days "out of office", I saw your request only late this
night. On the web site I saw no german translation, so I post you my
text inline.
Use it as you like.
-
Warum der 21. Februar gewählt wurde
Der 21. Februar wurde von der UNESCO zum Internationalen Tag der
Muttersprache (International Mother Language Day, IMLD) erklärt. Dieser
Tag hat seinen Ursprung in der internationalen Anerkennung des Tages der
Bewegung für die Sprache (Language Movement Day), an den seit 1952 in
Bangladesh (dem früheren Ost-Pakistan) gedacht wird, als Studierende der
Universität Dhaka während Demonstrationen für die Bengalische Sprache in
Dhaka von der Polizei und der Armee getötet wurden. Dies war das einzige
Mal, dass Menschen ihr Leben gaben, um die Freiheit zur Nutzung ihrer
Muttersprache zu bewahren.
Zu ihrer Erinnerung wurde ein Denkmal mit Namen Shahid Minar ("Märtyrer
für die Sprache") in der Universität von Dhaka errichtet. Jedes Jahr
legen mehr als eine Million Menschen dort Blumen nieder. Dies ist ein
großes Ereignis in Bangladesh, das viele Ausländer besuchen, um zu
erleben, wie die Bangladeshi diesen tapferen Menschen ihren Respekt
erweisen. Jede Stadt in Bangladesh besitzt ein Denkmal "Märtyrer für die
Sprache", an dem die Bewohner Blumen niederlegen. Ein solches Denkmal
ist auch im Ikebukoro-Park in Tokyo, Japan, errichtet, ebenso in den
USA, in Großbritannien, in Italien und vielen anderen Ländern.
Denken Sie bitte über Ihre Muttersprache nicht nur am 21. Februar nach.
OpenOffice and Sprachenvielfalt
Heutzutage besteht die Gefahr für Muttersprachen nicht nur in der
Unterdrückung durch Regierungen. Da wir zunehmend elektronisch
kommunizieren und arbeiten, ist die Unterstützung von Muttersprachen in
unserer Software ein kritischer Punkt. Falls eine Sprache in Programmen
nicht gut unterstützt wird, sind diese Sprache und diese Muttersprachler
stark benachteiligt. Daher wird bei Apache OpenOffice großer Wert darauf
gelegt, sprachliche Vielfalt zu unterstützen.
Es gibt mehr als 6000 Sprachen weltweit, aber wenn eine Sprache nicht zu
einem der wirtschaftlich starken G20-Länder gehört, tendieren
kommerzielle Software-Hersteller dazu, sie zu ignorieren. Die
OpenOffice-Gemeinschaft hat eine lang währende Tradition darin, eine
große Anzahl von Sprachen zu unterstützen einschließlich Sprachen
kleiner Völker, Minderheitensprachen, gefährdete Sprachen usw.
Beispielsweise besitzt Süd-Afrika elf offizielle Sprachen. OpenOffice
ist in alle diese Sprachen übersetzt worden. Indem wir Sprachen
unterstützen, die ansonsten nicht unterstützt würden, helfen wir, den
"digitalen Ausschluss" zu reduzieren und unterstützen Entwicklung,
Ausbildung und Verwaltung dieser Länder.
Als eine von Freiwilligen getragene, nicht Gewinn orientierte
Organisation hängt Apache OpenOffice von Helfern ab, die OpenOffice
übersetzen. Mit Ihrer Hilfe können wir Hunderte von Sprachen
unterstützen. Eine Liste der Sprachen, die wir zur Zeit unterstützen
(wollen), finden Sie href="https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/";>hier.
Kontaktieren Sie uns, wenn Sie helfen können.
-
--
Grüße
Günter Marxen
Re: Draft blog post: International Mother Language Day 2013 -- Translations requested
Am 22.02.2013 15:10, schrieb Rob Weir: 2013/2/21 Guenter Marxen : Hi Rob, as I was several days "out of office", I saw your request only late this night. On the web site I saw no german translation, so I post you my text inline. Thanks. I've added it to the post. -Rob Thanks. A little correction: Instead of "OpenOffice and Sprachenvielfalt" : "OpenOffice und Sprachenvielfalt". -- Grüße Günter Marxen
Re: Draft blog post: International Mother Language Day 2013 -- Translations requested
Am 22.02.2013 15:59, schrieb Guenter Marxen: Am 22.02.2013 15:10, schrieb Rob Weir: Thanks. I've added it to the post. -Rob Thanks. A little correction: Sorry for not to have looked precisely enough. I have two little corrections: In German there is correct either Warum der 21. Februar gewählt wurde (without question mark) or Warum wurde der 21. Februar gewählt?(with q-mark) and Instead of "OpenOffice and Sprachenvielfalt" : "OpenOffice und Sprachenvielfalt". -- Grüße Günter Marxen
Re: A question about existing practices
Hi,
Am 18.03.2013 19:05, schrieb Dave Fisher:
There is no consensus here to eliminate or reset the votes. Some who are more
in touch with users have stated that it would be harmful. I trust their
judgement.
as a longtime "OpenOffice"-user (since StarWriter 2.0), I think that in
this case, Rob is wrong and resetting the votes would be something like
an offense to us, the "old" users, who wrote and commented issues or
voted for issues for many years.
I mainly used Writer, writing long texts with many images and many
references (f.e. an SO-/OOo-manual, widely spread in the german speaking
universities) and in times before the turbulences around OOo I made bug
and enhancement issues and also voted for issues.
Look f.e. at issue 5608
(https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=5608).
It was raised in 2002 and the latest comment is dated 2012. (I did not
find "my votes" and the number of votes in bugzilla, but I think, I
voted for it in 2004.)
Although the issue is ten years old and nobody worked on it, it remains
a very important enhancement issue for all, who are writing long texts
with (many) references. The issue is not at all outdated!
The same is valid for issue 11901
(https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=11901) and many others.
I always have accepted, that the lack of ressources/developers prevents
to solve some/many issues "in time", but I could hardly accept, that
"old" stuff in bugzilla is reset/deleted and hence forgotten. I think,
that some old users ("issuers") would be frustrated.
Instead of resetting the votes, one could have a list of 'issues with
many votes', "weight" them (f.e. as proposed by a survey) and then let
the volunteers/developers decide, if they want to work on their "most
important" issues in the list.
And perhaps for another ten years nobody is found to work on some or all
of them! But that does not change the importance of such issues
(provided that importance is not only measured by age).
Special cases are concerns/issues by "users" like the city of Munich (as
an "beacon project", Leuchtturmprojekt), which can weight more than 1000
individual votes.
If the process is transparent, users and "issuers" will understand (and
be patient).
--
Grüße
Günter Marxen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: A question about existing practices
Hi, I have a little bit the impression, that Rob and Jürgen are not understanding, what is meant. There is no demand, that special issues shouldt be resolved asap. There is no demand, to give a date or release, when the issue is resolved. There is only the wish, issues not to reset or to delete, that users find _important to make their work with OpenOffice easier and better_. The fact, that a user does not repeat his comments or requests each year, does not mean, that he is no longer interrested in the issue. It was good practice in the "old" community (as far as I know), that issues and comments and votes never were reset or deleted. And it would be contra-productive to begin with such "customs" in the "new" community. There is no missunderstanding (at least on my side) about this project, the ressources and possibilities and I read (or remember) not any comment by others in this thread, that could be interpreted in this sense. But to mention it here, Rob: There was one developer who "cared" for 5608 in 2008 (see "down under"). Some further comments inline: Am 19.03.2013 17:15, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: On 3/19/13 5:04 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:19 AM, RGB ES wrote: 2013/3/19 Rob Weir On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Guenter Marxen wrote: Am 18.03.2013 19:05, schrieb Dave Fisher: There is no consensus here to eliminate or reset the votes. Some who are more in touch with users have stated that it would be harmful. I trust their judgement. ... Look f.e. at issue 5608 I suppose it depends on how you define "important". There is nothing to suppose because I defined it: Working better on "...long texts with (many) references". That's surely far from being 'important for everyone'. Since issue 5608 was entered, back in 2002, we've fixed 36054 issues in Bugzilla. (31064 defects, 3839 enhancements and 1151 features). So that many bugs were fixed, or enhancements/features implemented, while issue #5608 was not. I don't know how you define "important", but to me something that is behind 36,054 other items is as close to unimportant as I can imagine. Your arguing is not reasonable, because importance is never defined by mere numbers. I accept, that "important" issues are not touched because of lack of ressources. But f.e. the second mentioned issue 11901 is a great disadvantage and "incompatibility" compared with the leading word processor. Remember, what things a developer chooses to code on is also a vote. They vote with their time. I count that kind of vote very highly, since it is backed up by actions. Those 36054 issues were important enough for someone to actually invest their time into fixing it. They "vote" relying on their "preferences" and "likes". A developer, who never writes long texts with many references may say 5608 is unimportant and I accept his opinion. But perhaps in short time, a new volunteer really understands the issue and likes to work on it. I don't mean to offend anyone by telling them that their issue is not I am not extremly touchy. ;-) Rob, I think you are missing the point here. I agree that the choice of a ... I insist: "we cannot do that now" is not the same of "we will not do that simply because nobody did it before". RGB ES, you are right. Thanks. But this is not a case of "we don't have someone right now to work on it". It is not a case of "not today, but maybe next week". This is not a case of "Sorry, we can't fit it in this release, but maybe we'll do it in the next release." What this is is a case where no one, absolutely no one, zero, zip, nada, gar nichts, nobody has cared to deal with the issue in over a decade. That screams out UNIMPORTANT. Strange logic and false. That only screams out, that there was (or remained) nobody, who understood the function or who had the time to work on it. But see comment #38 by Mathias Bauer (StarDivision/Sun, 2008), who "cared" and targeted 5608 to 3.x. The reason why it was not resolved then, seems clear to me. Remember, there is such thing as false hope. And if ever there was an example of false hope it is someone hoping for a decade old issue in Bugzilla that has been passed by by thousands of other issues. Strange logic. I'm not in a sentimental mood. But resolving enhancement issues like 5608 and 11901 would be a valuable improvement for a not so tiny group of users (f.e. at universities and alike). But you are completely right, for the "tiny text writers" these issues are "not important", they even do not need Writer. (Are this the target users of AOO?) I believe this thread will not bring any new information and we should probab
Re: [VOTE] Logo selection for Apache OpenOffice 4.0
-- HERE IS THE BALLOT: My ranked preferences for the AOO 4.0 logo are: 1st Choice: - the gulls from Kevin - the fonts, font attributes and "text positions" of the old logo 2nd Choice: None of the above (our current logo) 3rd Choice: Samer Mansour (because of "text position") 4th Choice: Kevin Grignon A (because of gulls) 5th Choice: -- Grüße Günter Marxen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Logo selection for Apache OpenOffice 4.0
Hi Rob, you invited all to vote (although only pmc member votes are binding). You did not report the non-pmc-votes. Are they not worth to be reported or was there a complete other (perhaps unwanted) result? Günter Marxen Am 06.06.2013 19:11, schrieb Rob Weir: Here are the binding votes, with names abbreviated as: CR = Chris Rottensteiner KGa = Kevin Grignon A KGb = Kevin Grignon AB SM = Samer Monsour none = none of the above PMC 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th robweir CR KGa KGb SM reginanoneCR Logo-39 Logo-28 rgb-esnoneSM CR KGa KGb arist SM CR KGa none kschenk Logo-28 Logo-31 KGb CR none pescetti CR SM noneKGa KGb hdu KGa KGb Logo-11 SM CR khirano noneKGa CR SM KGb mayongl noneCR KGa alg noneCR SM KGb KGa orw CR SM none jsc CR noneSM KGa afCR SM KGa none arielch none pjCR Logo-04 We have 15 ballots, so 8 votes are required to win. With Instant Runoff Voting we proceed in multiple rounds. In each round we tally the votes, see if anyone logo has the majority. If none do, then we drop the lowest scoring logo and reallocate the votes for those who picked the lowest scoring logo to their next ordered preference. Ties are broken by "looking forward" to next level preferences. Round 1 CR: 6 votes none: 6 votes SM: 1 vote Logo-28: 1 vote There is a tie for last place (SM and Logo-28) so we look forward to 2nd place preferences as a tiebreaker and see that SM has 4 votes and Logo-28 has zero. So we drop Logo-28 and move to Kay's 2nd preference (Logo-31) for Round 2. Round 2 CR: 6 votes none: 6 votes SM: 1 vote Logo-31: 1 vote Again, no logo has a majority, so we drop the lowest scoring logo. Again, a tie, so we look forward at next preferences where SM has 4 votes and Logo-31 has zero. So we drop Logo-31 and move to Kay's next preference (KGb) for Round 3. Round 3 CR: 6 votes none: 6 votes SM: 1 vote KGb: 1 vote Again, no logo has a majority, so we drop the lowest scoring logo. Again, a tie, so we look forward at next preference where SM has 4 votes and KGb has 1. So we drop KGb and move to Kay's next preference (CR) for Round 4. Round 4 CR: 7 votes none: 6 votes SM: 1 vote Again, no logo has a majority, so we drop the lowest scoring logo, SM, and reallocate Andrew's vote to his next choice, CR for round 5. Round 5 CR: 8 votes none: 6 votes CR now has the majority and wins. Note this is intuitively obvious as well, since 75% of the ballots rated CR higher than none. Regards, -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Grüße Günter Marxen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Logo selection for Apache OpenOffice 4.0
Am 08.06.2013 00:39, schrieb Rob Weir: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Guenter Marxen wrote: Hi Rob, you invited all to vote (although only pmc member votes are binding). You did not report the non-pmc-votes. Are they not worth to be reported or was there a complete other (perhaps unwanted) result? I did not tally those votes since they were non-binding. However, But they couldt have given good hints for an further improvement of the logo. (That could be achieved in very short time (72 hours).) all votes were echoed to the mailing list and are available in the archives, if anyone wants to analyze them further. So to say, we (as users, normal or power users) can spare every effort (votes, BZ reports etc.) because they are not (you say) "binding", but definetely it means not "worth to consider". It's the same as in case with the votes in BZ. In your mail of 2013-03-20 (ID ) you wrote "... So my approach will be to not use Bugzilla issues at all." Why shoudt we, users (and supporters) of AOO, do any tests and BZ reports if they are not used "at all"? Perhaps a not so "efficient" technocratic view like yours would be better for the product in such cases, although in many (or most) other aspects it's adequate. Günter Marxen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Article on the Register
Hi, Am 11.06.2013 18:49, schrieb Rob Weir: Put a new entry there for "News" or "Blog" and have that link to the blog. +1 (perhaps even News and Blog) -- Grüße Günter Marxen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [VOTE][RESULTS] Logo selection for Apache OpenOffice 4.0
Hi Andrea, thank you for your reply. Perhaps sometimes or always my mails look "argumentative", my concern is not. If you invite to participate and then "use it not at all", that is not motivating for engaged users. But this thread is past. (The next thread will come ;-). Am 11.06.2013 22:11, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: ... All indications from the 5000+ survey participants were given to the designers. Designers converged towards a common design and, if you see the final pool where we picked the final one from, you'll notice that they became all very similar to each other, and the final round picked the adapted version of the most voted logo in the survey. So the community at large was decisive the logo selection. That's true and accepted. All "last" logos resembled the old one with little differences. Therefore a synthesis of all could have been again a little bit better. (Sure it would have taken more time.) F.e. for me the gulls of Kevin are more "dynamic", fonts etc. of the old logo more harmonic. But this case is finished. Why shoudt we, users (and supporters) of AOO, do any tests and BZ reports if they are not used "at all"? Because all contributions are welcome and we surely don't look too much See 2. para at the top. at who reported a bug, we look at the bug. Let's take the Sidebar for example. As you can see in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121420 the Sidebar had 121 bugs reported so far, coming from regular contributors but also from the public at large, and all have been taken seriously (97% of them have already been fixed). As I wrote in other mails, I absolutely accept priorities. Perhaps a not so "efficient" technocratic view like yours would be better for the product in such cases, although in many (or most) other aspects it's adequate. The project in general does not have a "technocratic" view. But we are still in a situation where unless one regularly reads this list (and traffic here is likely too much for someone who only wants to get some basic updates) it is difficult to stay informed. We have margin for I read not all mails but most of the mails in "important" (for me) threads. improvement in internal communication. Maybe we would need something like an "OpenOffice Weekly News", a summary periodically posted to the list by someone, so that all contributors can read it to be sure that they aren't missing anything important... Perhaps this would increase the information wave and be contraproductive. On the other side structured information about this would be an advantage for the projekt but time consuming work. So for now let us argument a (not too) little bit. -- Grüße Günter Marxen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Building the PDF Import extension
Hi, Am 21.07.2013 15:43, schrieb Regina Henschel: Andrea Pescetti schrieb: ... where the old extension is expected to work). Do people who use other operating systems have problems? This is tracked in issue 122733. Ariel has build the extension newly. Find it in http://people.apache.org/~arielch/extensions/aoo-pdf-import/ I have tested the version aoo-pdf-import-0.0.1-windows-x86.oxt on Windows7. It works fine. I have tested it with AOO 4 RC2 under Win 7 Pro x64, installed for all users. Tests OK. -- Grüße Günter Marxen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Update 3.4.1 -> 4.0.0
Hi,
with AOO 3.4.1 DE with system integration under Win 7 Pro x64 I just
tested the upgrade "mechanisme" to 4.0.
After klicking on "... Update available" (German: "... Update
verfügbar") at the right in the menue bar and then in the following
dialog on "Download" ("Herunterladen"), there is shown the web-page
http://www.openoffice.org/de/?utm_source=AOO3_4_1_de&utm_medium=Client&utm_campaign=Upgrade
(1) The prominent headline is "Announcing Apache OpenOffice 3.4"
(2) There is no "prominent" link to "download AOO 4".
I think unexperienced users are disturbed and perhaps they don't know
how to go on.
Only after klicking on "Download" in the "menue bar" of this page with
"Produkte Download Support ..." there is the download link for AOO 4
"Windows (EXE) and Deutsch".
But furthermore I suggest to make the link for "all platforms,
_languages_..." more prominent for those (like me) who install several
language packs (and do not check all text on the page).
--
Grüße
Günter Marxen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
dead link on http://www.openoffice.org/de/
Hi, I checked the new German page http://www.openoffice.org/de/ and found one error: When I click on [Herunterladen] in the "menue bar", I get error 404. The link is http://www.openoffice.org/de/download/index.html instead of http://www.openoffice.org/de/downloads/ (see "Ich möchte OpenOffice herunterladen"). -- Grüße Günter Marxen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
first start of AOO 4
Hi,
now I have installed "AOO 4 de" with system integration (Win 7 Pro x64)
without deleting AOO 3.4.1 during install.
During the first start AOO 4 asks if it should install the dictionaries
of AOO 3.4.1.
Answering yes is OK (dict is installed in AOO4), but when clicking
[Abbrechen] (Cancel), AOO 4 is aborted too.
Worth an issue?
The Spelling Checker "Duden Korrektor 6.0.0" seems to be incompatibel
with AOO 4 ("loading component library failed..."). Or has anybody other
informations?
--
Grüße
Günter Marxen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: first start of AOO 4
Hi Jürgen,
Am 30.07.2013 06:15, schrieb Juergen Schmidt:
Am Montag, 29. Juli 2013 um 16:52 schrieb Guenter Marxen:
...
The Spelling Checker "Duden Korrektor 6.0.0" seems to be incompatibel
with AOO 4 ("loading component library failed..."). Or has anybody other
informations?
The Duden corrector is a C++ extension and they become easier incompatible.
But with the stlport change for AOO 4.0 it is natural that it is incompatible
and needs at least a recompilation.
Especially for C++ extensions the maintainer should use a max version
dependency and should ensure if everything works.
Even a compiler upgrade can cause an incompatible change.
many thanks. I'll ask the Duden publisher and report, when an
AOO4-version is available.
(If I understand it correctly, since AOO 4 there is no longer extension
compatibility with LO. I'm curious what Duden publisher decides.)
--
Grüße
Günter Marxen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Export of PDF/A-1a faulty ?
Hi, AOO 4 under Win 7 Pro x64. I've exported a Calc sheet as PDF/A-1a file, looked in Acrobat 8 Pro the properties: No security. I opened the PDF/A file in AOO 4 with aoo-pdf-import 0.1.0, could "correct" and save it again as PDF/A-1a file. (In Acrobat "no security" again.) Perhaps I do not understand correctly, but I think exporting a PDF/A-1a file which can easily be changed is a bug? -- Grüße Günter Marxen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Export of PDF/A-1a faulty ?
Hi Herbert, Am 01.08.2013 13:38, schrieb Herbert Duerr: PDF/A is a document format for long term preservation so it has some constraints to facilitate this. See ISO 19005 for details or [1] (provided by the Library of Congress) for an overview over these constraints. Here is the relevant excerpt: - Encryption is disallowed - Audio and video content are forbidden - Javascript and executable file launches are prohibited - All fonts must be embedded and also must be legally embeddable for unlimited, universal rendering - Colorspaces specified in a device-independent manner - Use of standards-based metadata is mandated [1] http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000125.shtml many thanks. Without knowing the details I had in mind, that "archived pdf documents" were "revisionssicher". Are there tools, to produce readable "really protected" pdf documents? (Adobe gives a warning in Acrobat Pro 8, that third party tools can bypass this sort of password protection of pdf files.) -- Grüße Günter Marxen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Export of PDF/A-1a faulty ?
Hi Herbert, Am 01.08.2013 16:30, schrieb Herbert Duerr: You probably want the signed PDFs and checking them ensures a PDF has not been tampered with. AOO doesn't yet support it [1], but there are third-party tools for signing the PDF or for encrypting the file itself. [1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=47895 many thanks for the infos. -- Grüße Günter Marxen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: first start of AOO 4
thank you, Andrea, if it's already covered in the release notes then I can spare my time opening an issue. ;-). Regards, Günter Am 03.08.2013 14:32, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: On 29/07/2013 Guenter Marxen wrote: During the first start AOO 4 asks if it should install the dictionaries of AOO 3.4.1. Answering yes is OK (dict is installed in AOO4), but when clicking [Abbrechen] (Cancel), AOO 4 is aborted too. Worth an issue? Is it similar (albeit much simpler) to what I describe in http://markmail.org/thread/gj7yptgnjkphhlrl i.e., you get an error but you can then restart OpenOffice 4 and everything works as expected? On that case, this doesn't sound particularly problematic and it's already covered in the Release Notes. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Proposal] Update Icons for AOO 4.1
Am 18.10.2013 14:51, schrieb Jürgen Schmidt: we should this discuss on the list only ... I have added a comment already but my preference would be 1. drop it completely or plus: ... members of the OpenOffice community. and perhaps (compare with "Help, Info"): "Copyright ... The A... S... F..." -- Grüße Günter Marxen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: AOO on Nexus 7 and the Kim Komando Show
Am 22.10.2013 22:31, schrieb Louis Suárez-Potts: @ all (including me, who is lazier than most and even more shameless): please bottom post. :-) louis Louis, thanks. But I wouldt like a little bit more. I am very astonished, that on this list with very experienced users nearly _nobody_ follows the netiquette when responding. I think, that nearly everybody uses a mail client which is able to handle threats. It would be much more easy and time saving (for all) to follow a thread (and participate), when mails are short and not containing all ever given answers. Don't take it only as criticism or disapproval but as an "enhancement issue". -- Grüße Günter Marxen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
regression bug in Writer: Writer freezes - mail merge - page preview
Hi, regression bug in AOO 4.0 (I did not find an issue). Win 7 Pro x64 German, AOO 4.0.1 German, 4.0.0 de and en(US); AOO 3.4.1 de is OK AOO 4.0.1 freezes (after a little time) when clicking on button preview> if address table is open ( "view data sources"). 1. open a mail-merge document, open the adress-table with , fill in an address. 2. click on button . After some seconds a (Windows-) message window appears "OpenOffice 4.0.1 does not function anymore" (German: OpenOffice 4.0.1 funktioniert nicht mehr) and "a solution is searched". After some time the whole OO-window is gray and it can only be closed in the message window with a button . It is the same with 4.0.0 de and en(US). But OO 3.4.1 de is OK (with the same files). -- Grüße Günter Marxen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: regression bug in Writer: Writer freezes - mail merge - page preview
Thanks, Ariel, this seams to be the appropriate issue. @ Liu Ping: Therefor no action on my side is necessary. -- Grüße Günter Marxen Am 04.11.2013 05:11, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 02:29:56AM +0100, Guenter Marxen wrote: regression bug in AOO 4.0 (I did not find an issue). ... This looks like https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123418 Regards - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [API] Priority Problem with AND and OR
Hi, Am 12.10.2015 um 21:40 schrieb Mathias Röllig: ... What do you expect? For logical operations AND is equivalent to * and OR is equivalent to +. no, that's not true. AND and OR have the same priority, just as * and / (division). (* and / have a higher priority than + and -.) AND should have a higher priority than OR, so I would expect in both Expressions have to be evaluated from left to right with respect to priority and parenthesis. "and" and "or" are binary operators. Therfore your examples can be written as "A or B" where "B = (C and D)". If you write your example as "A or (C and D)" then it is the same and everyone sees immediatly, how it is evaluated. In both cases, the result is TRUE, because "TRUE or anything" is TRUE, just as "TRUE or (anything)". "(A or B) and C" is totally different. On http://www.p-roocks.de/truthtable2.php you can create "tables of truth" (Wahrheitstabellen) for logical expressions like "A or B and C" and more complex ones. cases (because TRUE Or () = TRUE): bResult = TRUE But you will get TRUE Or FALSE And TRUE = (TRUE Or FALSE) And TRUE = TRUE TRUE Or TRUE And FALSE = (TRUE Or TRUE) And FALSE = FALSE Is there any explanation that AND and OR have (and should have) the same priority? It is as it is! -- Grüße Günter Marxen --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
