date:20121014

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
> This page is blank and now redirects to /license.html
>

Thanks!

-Rob

> If someone cares to change it go ahead.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Oct 14, 2012, at 5:28 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> A quick reminder.  The support forums are still pointing to Oracle's
>> Policies and Terms of Use document:
>>
>> http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
>>
>> This is inappropriate, inaccurate, confusing and quite possibly
>> improper.  It is also embarrassing for our project to have a Terms of
>> Use page that starts:
>>
>> "1. INTRODUCTION. This Site and its contents are made available by
>> Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
>> and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")."
>>
>> (Nothing against Oracle, of course, but it is embarrassing that this
>> page is still here 8 months after I first reported it,)
>>
>> I've made several good faith attempts at proposing a replacement over
>> the past year, but all were lost in bottomless bikeshedding.   I'm not
>> going to waste my time on this yet another time.  Hopefully someone on
>> the PMC feels empowered to take my past proposal and run with it, or
>> create an alternative and resolve this issue.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> Can someone take ownership of this issue?
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
>>>
>>> Look at http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php
>>>
>>> Then to the footer and the "Policies and Terms of Use".
>>>
>>> This links to this page:  http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
>>>
>>> That starts with "This Site and its contents are made available by
>>> Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
>>> and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")"
>>>
>>> It is nearly all wrong.  I consider a graduation issue that we get
>>> this remedied.
>>>
>>> Would it make sense to harmonize the terms with the wiki?  Both allow
>>> user/non-committer contributions.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Rob
>

Re: Terms of Service on Forums

2012-10-14 Thread Dave Fisher

This page is blank and now redirects to /license.html

If someone cares to change it go ahead.

Regards,
Dave

On Oct 14, 2012, at 5:28 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> A quick reminder.  The support forums are still pointing to Oracle's
> Policies and Terms of Use document:
> 
> http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
> 
> This is inappropriate, inaccurate, confusing and quite possibly
> improper.  It is also embarrassing for our project to have a Terms of
> Use page that starts:
> 
> "1. INTRODUCTION. This Site and its contents are made available by
> Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
> and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")."
> 
> (Nothing against Oracle, of course, but it is embarrassing that this
> page is still here 8 months after I first reported it,)
> 
> I've made several good faith attempts at proposing a replacement over
> the past year, but all were lost in bottomless bikeshedding.   I'm not
> going to waste my time on this yet another time.  Hopefully someone on
> the PMC feels empowered to take my past proposal and run with it, or
> create an alternative and resolve this issue.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rob
> 
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> Can someone take ownership of this issue?
>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
>> 
>> Look at http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php
>> 
>> Then to the footer and the "Policies and Terms of Use".
>> 
>> This links to this page:  http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
>> 
>> That starts with "This Site and its contents are made available by
>> Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
>> and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")"
>> 
>> It is nearly all wrong.  I consider a graduation issue that we get
>> this remedied.
>> 
>> Would it make sense to harmonize the terms with the wiki?  Both allow
>> user/non-committer contributions.
>> 
>> 
>> -Rob

Re: Terms of Service on Forums

A quick reminder.  The support forums are still pointing to Oracle's
Policies and Terms of Use document:

http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use

This is inappropriate, inaccurate, confusing and quite possibly
improper.  It is also embarrassing for our project to have a Terms of
Use page that starts:

"1. INTRODUCTION. This Site and its contents are made available by
Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")."

(Nothing against Oracle, of course, but it is embarrassing that this
page is still here 8 months after I first reported it,)

I've made several good faith attempts at proposing a replacement over
the past year, but all were lost in bottomless bikeshedding.   I'm not
going to waste my time on this yet another time.  Hopefully someone on
the PMC feels empowered to take my past proposal and run with it, or
create an alternative and resolve this issue.

Regards,

-Rob

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> Can someone take ownership of this issue?
>
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
>
> Look at http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php
>
> Then to the footer and the "Policies and Terms of Use".
>
> This links to this page:  http://www.openoffice.org/terms_of_use
>
> That starts with "This Site and its contents are made available by
> Oracle America, Inc. for and on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
> and affiliates under common control ("Oracle")"
>
> It is nearly all wrong.  I consider a graduation issue that we get
> this remedied.
>
> Would it make sense to harmonize the terms with the wiki?  Both allow
> user/non-committer contributions.
>
>
> -Rob

Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page

Am 10/15/2012 12:29 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 10/14/2012 05:56 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Marcus (OOo)
wrote:

Am 10/14/2012 05:17 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Marcus (OOo)
wrote:

Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)
wrote:

Am 10/10/2012 09:08 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:

http://www.openoffice.org/test/ ...
I am invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in
place
sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.

It's nice indeed. I only see the "Valid XHTML" icon positioned a bit
too
high maybe... Is it wanted?
http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png

And, by the way, clicking on it reveals that there are a couple of
markup fixes to apply, but I don't know if those are due to the CMS
or
to specific markup of the page.

Currenty it's 1 warning and 1 error. The warning comes because the
validator
uses a new HTML 5 checker which is still in Beta status. IMHO it's
irrelevant.

The error is due to the "PUBLISHER" tag in the link reference (line
8).

Due to the following webpage "PUBLISHER" is no valid HTML style.
However
I
wouldn't change it as it seems to be used for Google index
referencing:

If you make it lower case "publisher" it should be OK.

-Rob

http://www.thoughtsfromgeeks.com/resources/2793-Rel-publisher-standard-HTML-markup-or.aspx

Marcus

I've made the change but this doesn't make a difference, see:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links

Look at the detailed error message here:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3a%2f%2fwww.openoffice.org%2ftest%2f

It looks like the W3C Validator looks at more than the values in the
HTML specification. They also look at the Microformats Wiki:

http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions

"publisher" is listed there.

Of course, that is what the error message says. I have no idea if the
Validator actually works that way ;-)

For me the Wiki says "do not use 'publisher', it's no longer valid HTML
4.x
style":

Maybe you are not seeing what I am seeing.

The W3C Validator says:

"Syntax of link type valid for:
A whitespace-separated list of link types listed as allowed on
in the HTML specification or listed as an allowed on on
the Microformats wiki without duplicate keywords in the list. You can
register link types on the Microformats wiki yourself."

It links to this Microformats wiki page:

http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions

It says there:

" HTML5 link type extensions

The following values are registered as link type extensions per the
requirements in the WHATWG HTML spec and the requirements in the W3C
HTML5 spec. "

And in that table "publisher" is defined.

Yes, but as dropped. And for HTML 5 just proposed and not yet accepted.

No. Look carefully. There are two entries. The one in the "dropped"
tabled is for an older meaning of "publisher". But look again at the
first table. "publisher" is still there and references the Google
definition. So they dropped the old definition and added the a new

yes, but it's just "proposed". That means it's not yet valid.

one. Net result is the error goes away if we just change the
attribute value to all lowercase.

As you can see with the staged version of the index page the error is
still there. ;-)

However, it could come back in HTML 5 as it's already proposed:

And IMHO the validator recognizes this already.

But when deleting it from our webpage I can imagine what would happen.
;-),
so we should leave all as it is for the moment.

The question is whether we want to declare the page as HTML4, XHTML4
or HTML5. Right now we don't declare anything specific. So the

The page is already declared, as "XHTML 1.0 Strict", see the first line in
the source file:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>

But it seems to be deleted when it's staged and published, it's just the
following:

The only thing that counts is what is published and that is determined
by the templating logic.

Validator assumes we're HTML5 and uses those rules. If we want to be
validated as HTML 4.0

Re: Ipad application

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:

.
.
.

>
>> > This reminds me...do we want to add "rollapp" to the porting page?
>> >
>> >  https://www.rollapp.com/OpenOffice
>> >
>>
>> Maybe "on request"?   I think we'll drive ourselves crazy if we try to
>> track down every book on OpenOffice, ever OpenOffice consultant or
>> even every software extensions or derivative of OpenOffice.  I tried
>> to do this once, and look what it did to me:
>>
>> http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/11/the-legacy-of-openoffice-org.html
>>
>
> It seems to have made you a graphic historian! :) Not so bad actually.
>
>
>>
>> But if we set up an "on request" policy, then we just need to write up
>> a page with some instructions on how companies can submit such
>> listings.
>
>
> OK. Take a look at:
>
>  http://www.openoffice.org/porting/
>
> What would you say about the "Ports and distributions available now" column?
> Should either of these have been "by request"?
>

IMHO, these are all good.  We're bootstrapping.  But we might be able
to reduce the future maintenance if we add a note to that page, before
the listings, saying:

"The following list of 3rd party ports and distributions is made
available as a service to the community.  The Apache OpenOffice
project does not officially endorse or maintain these packages.   If
you have a port or distribution that you want to be listed here please
send the details to our mailing list at: d...@openoffice.apache.org"

This also has the benefit of publicly affirming that we're open to
adding other listings.  Of course, we always have been open to that.
But it is good to state so explicitly, like we do with books and
consultants.

-Rob

>
> This will be easier to maintain than us trying to pull such
>> information in.
>>

Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:
> Am 10/14/2012 05:56 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Marcus (OOo)
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 10/14/2012 05:17 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>
 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Marcus (OOo)
 wrote:
>
>
> Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 10/10/2012 09:08 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>
 On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>
>
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/test/ ...
> I am invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in
> place
> sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.





 It's nice indeed. I only see the "Valid XHTML" icon positioned a bit
 too
 high maybe... Is it wanted?
 http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png

 And, by the way, clicking on it reveals that there are a couple of
 markup fixes to apply, but I don't know if those are due to the CMS
 or
 to specific markup of the page.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Currenty it's 1 warning and 1 error. The warning comes because the
>>> validator
>>> uses a new HTML 5 checker which is still in Beta status. IMHO it's
>>> irrelevant.
>>>
>>> The error is due to the "PUBLISHER" tag in the link reference (line
>>> 8).
>>>
>>> Due to the following webpage "PUBLISHER" is no valid HTML style.
>>> However
>>> I
>>> wouldn't change it as it seems to be used for Google index
>>> referencing:
>>>
>>
>> If you make it lower case "publisher" it should be OK.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.thoughtsfromgeeks.com/resources/2793-Rel-publisher-standard-HTML-markup-or.aspx
>>>
>>> Marcus
>
>
>
>
> I've made the change but this doesn't make a difference, see:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links
>

 Look at the detailed error message here:


 http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3a%2f%2fwww.openoffice.org%2ftest%2f

 It looks like the W3C Validator looks at more than the values in the
 HTML specification.  They also look at the Microformats Wiki:



 http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions

 "publisher" is listed there.

 Of course, that is what the error message says.  I have no idea if the
 Validator actually works that way ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For me the Wiki says "do not use 'publisher', it's no longer valid HTML
>>> 4.x
>>> style":
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe you are not seeing what I am seeing.
>>
>> The W3C Validator says:
>>
>> "Syntax of link type valid for:
>>  A whitespace-separated list of link types listed as allowed on
>>   in the HTML specification or listed as an allowed on  on
>> the Microformats wiki without duplicate keywords in the list. You can
>> register link types on the Microformats wiki yourself."
>>
>> It links to this Microformats wiki page:
>>
>>
>> http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions
>>
>> It says there:
>>
>> " HTML5 link type extensions
>>
>> The following values are registered as link type extensions per the
>> requirements in the WHATWG HTML spec and the requirements in the W3C
>> HTML5 spec. "
>>
>> And in that table "publisher" is defined.
>
>
> Yes, but as dropped. And for HTML 5 just proposed and not yet accepted.
>

No.  Look carefully.  There are two entries.  The one in the "dropped"
tabled is for an older meaning of "publisher".  But look again at the
first table.  "publisher" is still there and references the Google
definition.  So they dropped the old definition and added the a new
one.  Net result is the error goes away if we just change the
attribute value to all lowercase.

>
>>> rel value | summary | defining specification | why dropped
>>> ---
>>> publisher | identifies a hypertext link to a publisher | HTML4dropped |
>>> unknown
>>>
>>> However, it could come back in HTML 5 as it's already proposed:
>>>
>>> Keyword | Effect on link | Effect on a, area | Brief description | Link
>>> to
>>> specification | Synonyms | Status
>>> ---
>>> publisher | External Resource | Contextual External Resource |
>>> indicate[s]
>>> that the destination of that hyperlink is a metadata profile (e.g. a
>>> social
>>> / real name profile like Google+) for the current page or portion
>>> thereof. |
>>> rel-publisher | proposed
>>>
>>> And IMHO the validator recognizes this already.
>>>
>>> But when deleting it from our webpage I can imagine what would happen.
>>> ;-),
>>> so we s

Re: Ipad application

2012-10-14 Thread Kay Schenk

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Wayne;
> >>
> >> I am not aware of anyone working with us on an iOS port.
> >>
> >> The IBM Lotus Symphony Viewer will work for read-only purposes:
> >>
> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ibm-lotus-symphony-viewer/id482597218?mt=8
> >>
> >>
> >> And there's also RollApp:
> >>
> >> https://www.rollapp.com/OpenOffice
> >>
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >>
> >> Pedro.
> >>
> >
> > This reminds me...do we want to add "rollapp" to the porting page?
> >
> >  https://www.rollapp.com/OpenOffice
> >
>
> Maybe "on request"?   I think we'll drive ourselves crazy if we try to
> track down every book on OpenOffice, ever OpenOffice consultant or
> even every software extensions or derivative of OpenOffice.  I tried
> to do this once, and look what it did to me:
>
> http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/11/the-legacy-of-openoffice-org.html
>

It seems to have made you a graphic historian! :) Not so bad actually.


>
> But if we set up an "on request" policy, then we just need to write up
> a page with some instructions on how companies can submit such
> listings.


OK. Take a look at:

 http://www.openoffice.org/porting/

What would you say about the "Ports and distributions available now" column?
Should either of these have been "by request"?


This will be easier to maintain than us trying to pull such
> information in.
>
> -Rob
>

>
> >
> >>
> >> - Original Message -
> >> > From: Wayne R. Campbell
> >> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > Cc:
> >> > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:55 AM
> >> > Subject: Ipad application
> >> >
> >> > I have just bought an IPad and would like to load your word and
> >> spreadsheet
> >> > software. Do you have software for the IPad or do I have to buy
> >> something?
> >> >
> >> > Love the software!!!
> >> > Thanks
> >> >
> >> > Wayne Campbell
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> 
> > MzK
> >
> > "Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never
> >  dealt  with a cat."
> > -- Robert Heinlein
>



-- 

MzK

"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never
 dealt  with a cat."
-- Robert Heinlein

Re: There is an "orb logo with gulls" on openSUSE installer

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:45 PM, RGB ES  wrote:
> Yesterday I upgraded my system to openSUSE 12.2. The installer, when
> copying packages to the hard drive offer a slide show to highlight the main
> openSUSE characteristics. What caught my eye on this slide show is the part
> that talk about the office suite: openSUSE distribute LibO, but instead of
> using the TDF logo you can see an orb with two gulls. The openSUSE's orb is
> in a darker blue and the gulls are not white, but it is clearly based on
> the AOO logo.
>
> Not sure if this is this a "trademark issue" or something non important...
> what do you think?
>

If you want, you can enter an issue in BZ for this.  We have a
category for trademark issues:

https://issues.apache.org/ooo/enter_bug.cgi?product=trademark

This is useful for tracking.  It also allows the subset of the
volunteers who are interested and knowledgeable about trademarks to
deal with it, even if they are not available during the time that the
email thread is active.

Thanks,

-Rob

> Regards
> Ricardo

Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page

Am 10/14/2012 05:56 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 10/14/2012 05:17 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Marcus (OOo)
wrote:

Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)
wrote:

Am 10/10/2012 09:08 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:

http://www.openoffice.org/test/ ...
I am invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.

It's nice indeed. I only see the "Valid XHTML" icon positioned a bit
too
high maybe... Is it wanted?
http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png

And, by the way, clicking on it reveals that there are a couple of
markup fixes to apply, but I don't know if those are due to the CMS or
to specific markup of the page.

Currenty it's 1 warning and 1 error. The warning comes because the
validator
uses a new HTML 5 checker which is still in Beta status. IMHO it's
irrelevant.

The error is due to the "PUBLISHER" tag in the link reference (line 8).

Due to the following webpage "PUBLISHER" is no valid HTML style.
However
I
wouldn't change it as it seems to be used for Google index referencing:

If you make it lower case "publisher" it should be OK.

-Rob

http://www.thoughtsfromgeeks.com/resources/2793-Rel-publisher-standard-HTML-markup-or.aspx

Marcus

I've made the change but this doesn't make a difference, see:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links

Look at the detailed error message here:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3a%2f%2fwww.openoffice.org%2ftest%2f

It looks like the W3C Validator looks at more than the values in the
HTML specification. They also look at the Microformats Wiki:

http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions

"publisher" is listed there.

Of course, that is what the error message says. I have no idea if the
Validator actually works that way ;-)

For me the Wiki says "do not use 'publisher', it's no longer valid HTML 4.x
style":

Maybe you are not seeing what I am seeing.

The W3C Validator says:

It links to this Microformats wiki page:

http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions

It says there:

" HTML5 link type extensions

The following values are registered as link type extensions per the
requirements in the WHATWG HTML spec and the requirements in the W3C
HTML5 spec. "

And in that table "publisher" is defined.

Yes, but as dropped. And for HTML 5 just proposed and not yet accepted.

However, it could come back in HTML 5 as it's already proposed:

And IMHO the validator recognizes this already.

But when deleting it from our webpage I can imagine what would happen. ;-),
so we should leave all as it is for the moment.

The question is whether we want to declare the page as HTML4, XHTML4
or HTML5. Right now we don't declare anything specific. So the

The page is already declared, as "XHTML 1.0 Strict", see the first line
in the source file:

"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>

But it seems to be deleted when it's staged and published, it's just the
following:

Validator assumes we're HTML5 and uses those rules. If we want to be
validated as HTML 4.01 Transitional then we should declare that
doctype.

Or investigate and fix whats going wrong in staging and publishing. ;-)

But honestly, the website is all over the place, with a mix of
markups. I don't know if it really makes sense to have the W3C Valid
HTML on the home page, since we cannot claim this even for that single
page. Maybe we should just remove it?

Deleting because we cannot fix it? Hm.

Marcus

Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page


Am 10/14/2012 05:58 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:


Am 10/10/2012 05:29 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:


On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Andrea Pescetti**
wrote:

  On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:


  http://www.openoffice.org/test/

>
  ...


I am  invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.



It's nice indeed. I only see the "Valid XHTML" icon positioned a bit too
high maybe... Is it wanted?
http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png
<**http://people.apache.org/~**pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png





And, by the way, clicking on it reveals that there are a couple of markup
fixes to apply, but I don't know if those are due to the CMS or to
specific
markup of the page.



hmmm...thanks for the feedback. Yes, the positioning can be changed and I
will look at the fixes it tags.



I've changed the positioning of the W3C validator logo to show it left
aligned. IMHO it's looking better than stuck to the rightmost. I hope you
don't mind.

Marcus



Well I kind of like it off to the right better, but this isn't a big issue
for me.

As for the validator element itself...I would be in favor of removing it
entirely. It's only on the home page so what's the point unless we want to
add it to the footer area, so it would display on ALL pages.  Ah! I just


Good point. Moving it into the footer would be great.

Marcus




saw Rob's response! I'm all for removing this little graphic entirely as
well.

Yes, I too saw the "publisher" error, but decided to just leave it alone.

Re: Ipad application

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
>
>> Hi Wayne;
>>
>> I am not aware of anyone working with us on an iOS port.
>>
>> The IBM Lotus Symphony Viewer will work for read-only purposes:
>> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ibm-lotus-symphony-viewer/id482597218?mt=8
>>
>>
>> And there's also RollApp:
>>
>> https://www.rollapp.com/OpenOffice
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>
> This reminds me...do we want to add "rollapp" to the porting page?
>
>  https://www.rollapp.com/OpenOffice
>

Maybe "on request"?   I think we'll drive ourselves crazy if we try to
track down every book on OpenOffice, ever OpenOffice consultant or
even every software extensions or derivative of OpenOffice.  I tried
to do this once, and look what it did to me:

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/11/the-legacy-of-openoffice-org.html

But if we set up an "on request" policy, then we just need to write up
a page with some instructions on how companies can submit such
listings.  This will be easier to maintain than us trying to pull such
information in.

-Rob


>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> > From: Wayne R. Campbell
>> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Cc:
>> > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:55 AM
>> > Subject: Ipad application
>> >
>> > I have just bought an IPad and would like to load your word and
>> spreadsheet
>> > software. Do you have software for the IPad or do I have to buy
>> something?
>> >
>> > Love the software!!!
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Wayne Campbell
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 
> MzK
>
> "Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never
>  dealt  with a cat."
> -- Robert Heinlein

Re: Graduation timeline: A reminder for project members, press and list observers

Sent from my tablet
On Oct 14, 2012 9:18 PM, "Rob Weir"  wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dave Fisher 
wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 14, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
> >>  wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:50:06PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>  The fact that it never occurred to anyone participating in the
definition
>  of the PMC membership is, in my opinion, a major failing of process
which
>  was designed to identify people with sufficient merit.
> >>>
> >>> Now that you mentioned it, the process was more democratic, than
> >>> meritocratic: it didn't only fail to identify people with sufficient
> >>> merit, it also failed to measure merit (that's why I voted 0).
> >>>
> >>
> >> Isn't this easy to solve?  All we need is for one proposed PMC-member
> >> to say that they will, as one of their first actions as a TLP PMC
> >> member, propose the former mentors for PMC membership.
> >>
> >> Is anyone willing to state this?
> >
> > Yes. That has been my plan. I also would accept any additions to the
PMC that the Board chooses to make.
> >
>
> Great.  Personally I think it makes sense for the PMC to manage its
> own evolution.  This is a non-trivial part of The Apache Way.
>
> I realize that the ASF Board has the ability in extraordinary
> situations to intervene directly in a PMC's decision making process.
> "As a last resort" and "a blunt instrument" are the terms I recall
> being used earlier in reference to Board intervention.   It will be
> very interesting to see if they think this is a situation that
> warrants such action.

Please don't quote things out of context, it doesn't help. Changing a
resolution is not an "extraordinary situation", its part of the board's
responsibility to the foundation. The PMC I currently chair, for example,
had a couple of relevant and appropriate people added by the board before
creation.

That being said, I am not suggesting the board will take such an action, I
cannot predict the actions of a board of 9. I will observe, that a concern
has been raised and the reactions of this community to those concerns has
been, on the whole, appreciative and appropriate (and I don't mean only
Dave's statement above, in fact I dont think that is necessary).

Ross

>
> -Rob
>
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> --
> >>> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> >>> La Plata, Argentina
> >

Re: Open Office - Upgrade to 3.4.1

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:57 AM, gail beale  wrote:
> I currently have open office version 3.4 on my laptop.  I have been notified
> that an upgrade is available and I attempted to download it.
>
> I received a warning that the upgrade was unsigned and could cause significant
> damage to my pc.   Naturally, I cancelled the update.
>
> Also, when initially loaded, it was not Apache Open Office.  Has there been a
> change in ownership?
>

Hello Gail,

The warning message you are seeing is probably coming from your web
browser, your operating system or from your desktop security software.
 It is telling you that the software is not signed and that you should
only install it if you trust where it came from.   If you downloaded
it from http://www.openoffice.org/download then you should be fine.

Version prior to 3.4 were called "OpenOffice.org".  3.4.0 and 3.4.1
and future versions are called "Apache OpenOffice".  This is due to
the changes that took place last year when Oracle donated OpenOffice
to Apache.  You can read more on that here:

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/statements-on-openofficeorg-contribution-to-apache-nasdaq-orcl-1521400.htm

Regards,

-Rob

>
> My question is why am I being warned not to download the upgrades?  Is there a
> problem?

Re: Graduation timeline: A reminder for project members, press and list observers

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Oct 14, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
>>  wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:50:06PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
 The fact that it never occurred to anyone participating in the definition
 of the PMC membership is, in my opinion, a major failing of process which
 was designed to identify people with sufficient merit.
>>>
>>> Now that you mentioned it, the process was more democratic, than
>>> meritocratic: it didn't only fail to identify people with sufficient
>>> merit, it also failed to measure merit (that's why I voted 0).
>>>
>>
>> Isn't this easy to solve?  All we need is for one proposed PMC-member
>> to say that they will, as one of their first actions as a TLP PMC
>> member, propose the former mentors for PMC membership.
>>
>> Is anyone willing to state this?
>
> Yes. That has been my plan. I also would accept any additions to the PMC that 
> the Board chooses to make.
>

Great.  Personally I think it makes sense for the PMC to manage its
own evolution.  This is a non-trivial part of The Apache Way.

I realize that the ASF Board has the ability in extraordinary
situations to intervene directly in a PMC's decision making process.
"As a last resort" and "a blunt instrument" are the terms I recall
being used earlier in reference to Board intervention.   It will be
very interesting to see if they think this is a situation that
warrants such action.

-Rob

> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> --
>>> Ariel Constenla-Haile
>>> La Plata, Argentina
>

Open Office - Upgrade to 3.4.1

2012-10-14 Thread gail beale

I currently have open office version 3.4 on my laptop.  I have been notified 
that an upgrade is available and I attempted to download it. 

I received a warning that the upgrade was unsigned and could cause significant 
damage to my pc.   Naturally, I cancelled the update.  

Also, when initially loaded, it was not Apache Open Office.  Has there been a 
change in ownership? 


My question is why am I being warned not to download the upgrades?  Is there a 
problem?

Re: Graduation timeline: A reminder for project members, press and list observers

Yes, it's easily resolved, Dave already indicated the three ways it might
be resolved. Like I said its more of a lesson to be learned than a reason
to delay. Awareness of the issue is enough for now.

Ross

Sent from mobile, forgive terseness and errors
On Oct 14, 2012 5:55 PM, "Dave Fisher"  wrote:

>
> On Oct 14, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
> >  wrote:
> >> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:50:06PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>> The fact that it never occurred to anyone participating in the
> definition
> >>> of the PMC membership is, in my opinion, a major failing of process
> which
> >>> was designed to identify people with sufficient merit.
> >>
> >> Now that you mentioned it, the process was more democratic, than
> >> meritocratic: it didn't only fail to identify people with sufficient
> >> merit, it also failed to measure merit (that's why I voted 0).
> >>
> >
> > Isn't this easy to solve?  All we need is for one proposed PMC-member
> > to say that they will, as one of their first actions as a TLP PMC
> > member, propose the former mentors for PMC membership.
> >
> > Is anyone willing to state this?
>
> Yes. That has been my plan. I also would accept any additions to the PMC
> that the Board chooses to make.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> --
> >> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> >> La Plata, Argentina
>
>

Re: help for ubuntu needed.

2012-10-14 Thread Ariel Constenla-Haile

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 08:31:43PM +0200, jan iversen wrote:
> Bulls eye, as we say here in spain (even though I am danish).
> 
> I did the configure, but the POOLPRODUCT did the magic, thanks a lot.
> 
> One question, should I do something with configure, when I download changes
> to keep POOLPRODUCT=0 ?

AFAIK no. That's why I thought there must be something wrong with your
EPM, it is failing to move the package one built to the pooling
directory, so I asume you are using a non patched EPM.

> What is POOLPRODUCT ?

It keeps the packages already built in a pool, on

main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/pool_deb
main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6.pro/pool_rpm

if the package is up to date, then it isn't rebuilt, but simply taken
from the pool:

http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/search?q=POOLPRODUCT&defs=&refs=&path=&hist=&project=aoo-trunk


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina


pgpLGfV0xZcXE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: help for ubuntu needed.

2012-10-14 Thread jan iversen

Bulls eye, as we say here in spain (even though I am danish).

I did the configure, but the POOLPRODUCT did the magic, thanks a lot.

One question, should I do something with configure, when I download changes
to keep POOLPRODUCT=0 ?

What is POOLPRODUCT ?

thanks for the help.
rgds,
jan I.

On 14 October 2012 20:17, Ariel Constenla-Haile  wrote:

> Hi Jan,
>
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 07:22:11PM +0200, jan iversen wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I am a newbie, trying to build AOO 3.4.1 on ubunto 12.04.
> >
> > I have it nearly running but "build -all" fails in step instsetoo_active,
> > with the following message:
> >
> > More than one new package in directory .deb/en-USinprogress
> >
> > But the only directory in that path is en-USwith_errors.
> >
> > the rest of build -all had no errors (or it did not break).
> >
> > can anybody please give me a hint of what I am missing.
>
> It looks like you are using EPM from Ubuntu's repo; if so, it won't
> work, reconfigure with
> --with-epm-url=http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz
>
> If you already did that, try setting POOLPRODUCT=0 in
> main/instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst ca. line 25
>
>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina
>



-- 
Jan Iversen

Tel. no. +34 622 87 66 19
jandorte.wordpress.com

Re: help for ubuntu needed.

2012-10-14 Thread Ariel Constenla-Haile

Hi Jan,

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 07:22:11PM +0200, jan iversen wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I am a newbie, trying to build AOO 3.4.1 on ubunto 12.04.
> 
> I have it nearly running but "build -all" fails in step instsetoo_active,
> with the following message:
> 
> More than one new package in directory .deb/en-USinprogress
> 
> But the only directory in that path is en-USwith_errors.
> 
> the rest of build -all had no errors (or it did not break).
> 
> can anybody please give me a hint of what I am missing.

It looks like you are using EPM from Ubuntu's repo; if so, it won't
work, reconfigure with
--with-epm-url=http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz

If you already did that, try setting POOLPRODUCT=0 in
main/instsetoo_native/util/openoffice.lst ca. line 25


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina


pgpgKaLRrvsud.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: help for ubuntu needed.

2012-10-14 Thread jan iversen

Hi.

Well I need to debug the localization process so I think I have no other
option than to build it.

I should have mentioned that I am an old time programmer, and have had OO
installed as binary for years, but now I have become involved in the
translation process (and how to streamline it).

The build process of AOO are similar but still different from other apache
products, it seems it tries to build a .deb version together with a release
version...but I only use "build --all"

rgds
Jan I.


On 14 October 2012 20:05, Mechtilde  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello
>
> Am 14.10.2012 19:22, schrieb jan iversen:
> > Hi
> >
> > I am a newbie, trying to build AOO 3.4.1 on ubunto 12.04.
>
> do you have special requirements to build it yourself. In general it
> is easier to install the DEBs from http://www.openoffice.org/download/
>
>
> Regards
> Mechtilde
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlB6/vwACgkQucZfh1OziSuFIgCff9jFuhp8sUNl20wJowoEdXT9
> yAoAn1Plu3rtqm+GdSl2Zbl6ARV49lfY
> =ilII
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>

Re: help for ubuntu needed.

2012-10-14 Thread Mechtilde

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello

Am 14.10.2012 19:22, schrieb jan iversen:
> Hi
> 
> I am a newbie, trying to build AOO 3.4.1 on ubunto 12.04.

do you have special requirements to build it yourself. In general it
is easier to install the DEBs from http://www.openoffice.org/download/


Regards
Mechtilde

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlB6/vwACgkQucZfh1OziSuFIgCff9jFuhp8sUNl20wJowoEdXT9
yAoAn1Plu3rtqm+GdSl2Zbl6ARV49lfY
=ilII
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

help for ubuntu needed.

2012-10-14 Thread jan iversen

Hi

I am a newbie, trying to build AOO 3.4.1 on ubunto 12.04.

I have it nearly running but "build -all" fails in step instsetoo_active,
with the following message:

More than one new package in directory .deb/en-USinprogress

But the only directory in that path is en-USwith_errors.

the rest of build -all had no errors (or it did not break).

can anybody please give me a hint of what I am missing.

thanks in advance.
rgds
jan I.

Re: Graduation timeline: A reminder for project members, press and list observers

2012-10-14 Thread Dave Fisher


On Oct 14, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
>  wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:50:06PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> The fact that it never occurred to anyone participating in the definition
>>> of the PMC membership is, in my opinion, a major failing of process which
>>> was designed to identify people with sufficient merit.
>> 
>> Now that you mentioned it, the process was more democratic, than
>> meritocratic: it didn't only fail to identify people with sufficient
>> merit, it also failed to measure merit (that's why I voted 0).
>> 
> 
> Isn't this easy to solve?  All we need is for one proposed PMC-member
> to say that they will, as one of their first actions as a TLP PMC
> member, propose the former mentors for PMC membership.
> 
> Is anyone willing to state this?

Yes. That has been my plan. I also would accept any additions to the PMC that 
the Board chooses to make.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
>> 
>> Regards
>> --
>> Ariel Constenla-Haile
>> La Plata, Argentina

Re: OpenOffice Developer Room (devroom) at FOSDEM

2012-10-14 Thread Andrea Pescetti


On 11/10/2012 Andrea Pescetti wrote:

Yes; apparently LibreOffice had not thought about this, even though it
was clearly written in the guidelines that organizers would have asked
to merge similar devrooms. So we'll need to wait. The organizers set
Saturday as a deadline.


For the record, I haven't received any news from LibreOffice or from the 
FOSDEM organizers so far; as soon as I have news I'll report them here. 
We don't have anything to do any longer (everything is already done on 
our side), except waiting for the organizers' decision.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: Graduation timeline: A reminder for project members, press and list observers

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
 wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:50:06PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> The fact that it never occurred to anyone participating in the definition
>> of the PMC membership is, in my opinion, a major failing of process which
>> was designed to identify people with sufficient merit.
>
> Now that you mentioned it, the process was more democratic, than
> meritocratic: it didn't only fail to identify people with sufficient
> merit, it also failed to measure merit (that's why I voted 0).
>

Isn't this easy to solve?  All we need is for one proposed PMC-member
to say that they will, as one of their first actions as a TLP PMC
member, propose the former mentors for PMC membership.

Is anyone willing to state this?

-Rob


>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina

Re: Problems sign in consultants directory

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
>> > i think this reference is perhaps not the totally
>> appropriate assistance. Please consider two things:
>> >
>> > - not all speak english well and want to post on mailing-lists
>>
>> I understand.  We can add translations of that page if you
>> think it would help.
>>
>> But the mailing list post is required as part of the process.  A
>> listing in the consultants directory is not a right.  It is not
>> guaranteed.  It requires review by the PMC, and the PMC does its work
>> openly on the ooo-dev list.  The submittor does not need to subscribe
>> to ooo-dev, but they do need to submit there listing here.  So even if
>> we find ways to automate this, we would want to ensure that any
>> automation sends a copy of the submission to ooo-dev.
>
> OK, but it is necessary that each user writes itself?
>
> In my invitation, I had noted additionally:
>
> Should you have any questions, you can contact me personally at. I shall help 
> you.
>
>
> In my opinion it should be possible that the people write me and I will send 
> their data to the mailinglist. *Not* in *all* cases, but in cases where it is 
> necessary. Or is this a problem?
>

That sounds OK also if you are volunteering to help them.The
important thing is that the listings are put on the ooo-dev list for
review and lazy consensus.

-Rob

>
> Greetings,
> Jörg
>

Re: Graduation timeline: A reminder for project members, press and list observers

2012-10-14 Thread Ariel Constenla-Haile

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:50:06PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> The fact that it never occurred to anyone participating in the definition
> of the PMC membership is, in my opinion, a major failing of process which
> was designed to identify people with sufficient merit.

Now that you mentioned it, the process was more democratic, than
meritocratic: it didn't only fail to identify people with sufficient
merit, it also failed to measure merit (that's why I voted 0).

Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina

pgpkxlhHtoeLA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Problems sign in consultants directory

> > i think this reference is perhaps not the totally 
> appropriate assistance. Please consider two things:
> >
> > - not all speak english well and want to post on mailing-lists
> 
> I understand.  We can add translations of that page if you 
> think it would help.
> 
> But the mailing list post is required as part of the process.  A
> listing in the consultants directory is not a right.  It is not
> guaranteed.  It requires review by the PMC, and the PMC does its work
> openly on the ooo-dev list.  The submittor does not need to subscribe
> to ooo-dev, but they do need to submit there listing here.  So even if
> we find ways to automate this, we would want to ensure that any
> automation sends a copy of the submission to ooo-dev.

OK, but it is necessary that each user writes itself?

In my invitation, I had noted additionally:

Should you have any questions, you can contact me personally at. I shall help 
you.


In my opinion it should be possible that the people write me and I will send 
their data to the mailinglist. *Not* in *all* cases, but in cases where it is 
necessary. Or is this a problem?


Greetings,
Jörg

Re: Problems sign in consultants directory

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:
> On 10/14/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:
>>> On 10/14/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
 wrote:
> Please write an example on the page, not just throw the XML file doing
> something as simple as
> 
> Your company
> foo street at disneyland
> http://www.yourcompany.com
> 
>

 There is an entire file of real examples linked to from that page:
 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/bizdev/consultants/consultants.xml
>>>
>>> My point exactly. I would rather see this shown as HTML/ASCII, the XML
>>> dump is not bad but usually end up in  hard to read spew of data that
>>> non-technical users can't understand what happened.
>>>

> Would go a long way, the instructions look a bit too technical for
> regular users. Even if we assume this are technical people, we should
> think this is being applied by the marketing intern used to facebook.
>
> I would even suggest doing an XForm to generate this XML and spew it
> on a texboard with a copy-paste this on your email.
>

 Patches are welcome.
>>>
>>> Here is an XForm sample:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 
>>> >> action="submit.asp"
>>> method="get"/>
>>> 
>>> First Name
>>> Last Name
>>> Submit
>>> 
>>>
>>
>> The form is the easy part.  The hard part is getting it integrated in
>> a way that works with our current server environment.  As you've
>> probably noticed we don't have mail-in forms anywhere on our website.
>> Perhaps there are some security issues here?  Infra would know.  But
>> there would be some work to either enable the server-side processing
>> of this, or of generating the XML with instructions for the user to
>> copy/paste it into an email to ooo-dev.
>>
>> Personally I don't think the expected volume of submissions justifies
>> the time required to put further automation into play.  (My personal
>> opinion).  As the instructions say, the submittor can just send
>> equivalent information to the list and we can do the XML formatting
>> for them.
>
> Ok the original proposal was that it will dump the data in a texbox
> (Javascript can do this as opposed to the submit.asp). Just to
> pre-format his entry, user  can then paste it on an email.
>
> And if no automation is necessary then I think it should be the first
> thing said, like this:
>
> Please submit the information to our ooo-dev mailing list:
>
> - Company name
> - Country code [1]
> - Address
> - URL
> -Specialities: [2]
>
> 1 - see our ISO compliant country listing
> 2 - see our list of specialties
>
> The rest of the information like XML, XSD, etc, should be put as
> complementary information.
>

This is a good idea.  I'll try to simplify the instructions.

-Rob

>
>>
>> -Rob
>>

> Specially consider the speciality would be all over the place as a
> freeform XML.
>

 In the current form it is restricted to enumerated values.  This list
>>>
>>> Oh there is a form, I most have missed that.
>>>
 can expand on request, but I'd like to not have it be freeform so it
 can be used as a categorization field.  The  field is the
 freeform field, where they can put anything relevant.

> On 10/14/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Jörg Schmidt 
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I now have sent an invitation to 41 companies relating to an entry in
>>> the
>>> directory:
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultants.html
>>>
>>> And I got the first reply:
>>>
>>> 
 Listings must be submitted to the ooo-dev mailing list as patches to
 the
 file consultants.xml
>>>  >
>>>
>>> nicht Ihr Ernst, oder?
>>> 
>>>
>>> No problem in this individual case, because I offered my personal
>>> help,
>>> but I think it may seem too complicated for some users even having to
>>> create an XML file.
>>>
>>> What can we do?
>>>
>>> For example, i could write a macro for AOO with an input dialog,
>>> which
>>> simplifies the creation of the XML file. But I need a few days time.
>>>
>>> Hints?
>>>
>>
>> This is covered in the instructions here:
>>
>> "If you are not familiar with XML, please submit the equivalent
>> information in a post to the ooo-dev list and we can help you format
>> it for submission. But your listing will appear faster if it is
>> submitted in the proper form."
>>
>> Reference:
>> http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultant-submission.html
>>
>> A form with Javascript to form the XML might be useful sometime, but
>> it is possible that the XML schema might change based on feedback we
>> receive during this initial phase

Re: Problems sign in consultants directory

2012-10-14 Thread Alexandro Colorado

On 10/14/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:
>> On 10/14/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
>>> wrote:
 Please write an example on the page, not just throw the XML file doing
 something as simple as
 
 Your company
 foo street at disneyland
 http://www.yourcompany.com
 

>>>
>>> There is an entire file of real examples linked to from that page:
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/bizdev/consultants/consultants.xml
>>
>> My point exactly. I would rather see this shown as HTML/ASCII, the XML
>> dump is not bad but usually end up in  hard to read spew of data that
>> non-technical users can't understand what happened.
>>
>>>
 Would go a long way, the instructions look a bit too technical for
 regular users. Even if we assume this are technical people, we should
 think this is being applied by the marketing intern used to facebook.

 I would even suggest doing an XForm to generate this XML and spew it
 on a texboard with a copy-paste this on your email.

>>>
>>> Patches are welcome.
>>
>> Here is an XForm sample:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> > action="submit.asp"
>> method="get"/>
>> 
>> First Name
>> Last Name
>> Submit
>> 
>>
>
> The form is the easy part.  The hard part is getting it integrated in
> a way that works with our current server environment.  As you've
> probably noticed we don't have mail-in forms anywhere on our website.
> Perhaps there are some security issues here?  Infra would know.  But
> there would be some work to either enable the server-side processing
> of this, or of generating the XML with instructions for the user to
> copy/paste it into an email to ooo-dev.
>
> Personally I don't think the expected volume of submissions justifies
> the time required to put further automation into play.  (My personal
> opinion).  As the instructions say, the submittor can just send
> equivalent information to the list and we can do the XML formatting
> for them.

Ok the original proposal was that it will dump the data in a texbox
(Javascript can do this as opposed to the submit.asp). Just to
pre-format his entry, user  can then paste it on an email.

And if no automation is necessary then I think it should be the first
thing said, like this:

Please submit the information to our ooo-dev mailing list:

- Company name
- Country code [1]
- Address
- URL
-Specialities: [2]

1 - see our ISO compliant country listing
2 - see our list of specialties

The rest of the information like XML, XSD, etc, should be put as
complementary information.


>
> -Rob
>
>>>
 Specially consider the speciality would be all over the place as a
 freeform XML.

>>>
>>> In the current form it is restricted to enumerated values.  This list
>>
>> Oh there is a form, I most have missed that.
>>
>>> can expand on request, but I'd like to not have it be freeform so it
>>> can be used as a categorization field.  The  field is the
>>> freeform field, where they can put anything relevant.
>>>
 On 10/14/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Jörg Schmidt 
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I now have sent an invitation to 41 companies relating to an entry in
>> the
>> directory:
>> http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultants.html
>>
>> And I got the first reply:
>>
>> 
>>> Listings must be submitted to the ooo-dev mailing list as patches to
>>> the
>>> file consultants.xml
>>  >
>>
>> nicht Ihr Ernst, oder?
>> 
>>
>> No problem in this individual case, because I offered my personal
>> help,
>> but I think it may seem too complicated for some users even having to
>> create an XML file.
>>
>> What can we do?
>>
>> For example, i could write a macro for AOO with an input dialog,
>> which
>> simplifies the creation of the XML file. But I need a few days time.
>>
>> Hints?
>>
>
> This is covered in the instructions here:
>
> "If you are not familiar with XML, please submit the equivalent
> information in a post to the ooo-dev list and we can help you format
> it for submission. But your listing will appear faster if it is
> submitted in the proper form."
>
> Reference:
> http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultant-submission.html
>
> A form with Javascript to form the XML might be useful sometime, but
> it is possible that the XML schema might change based on feedback we
> receive during this initial phase of submissions.  So it might be
> better to wait.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Jörg
>>
>


 --
 Alexandro Colorado
 PPMC Apache OpenOffice
 http://es.openoffice.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alexandro Colorado
>> PPMC Apache Open

Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page

2012-10-14 Thread Kay Schenk

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:

> Am 10/10/2012 05:29 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Andrea Pescetti**
>> wrote:
>>
>>  On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>>  http://www.openoffice.org/test/ 
 >
  ...

 I am  invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
 sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.

>>> It's nice indeed. I only see the "Valid XHTML" icon positioned a bit too
>>> high maybe... Is it wanted?
>>> http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png
>>> <**http://people.apache.org/~**pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> And, by the way, clicking on it reveals that there are a couple of markup
>>> fixes to apply, but I don't know if those are due to the CMS or to
>>> specific
>>> markup of the page.
>>>
>>>
>> hmmm...thanks for the feedback. Yes, the positioning can be changed and I
>> will look at the fixes it tags.
>>
>
> I've changed the positioning of the W3C validator logo to show it left
> aligned. IMHO it's looking better than stuck to the rightmost. I hope you
> don't mind.
>
> Marcus
>

Well I kind of like it off to the right better, but this isn't a big issue
for me.

As for the validator element itself...I would be in favor of removing it
entirely. It's only on the home page so what's the point unless we want to
add it to the footer area, so it would display on ALL pages.  Ah! I just
saw Rob's response! I'm all for removing this little graphic entirely as
well.

Yes, I too saw the "publisher" error, but decided to just leave it alone.

-- 

MzK

"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never
 dealt  with a cat."
-- Robert Heinlein

Re: Graduation timeline: A reminder for project members, press and list observers

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Ross Gardler
 wrote:
> Sent from my tablet
> On Oct 13, 2012 11:00 PM, "Kay Schenk"  wrote:
>>
>
> ?..
>
>>
>> It never occurred to me that any of them would have necessarily been
>> interested.
>
> The fact that it never occurred to anyone participating in the definition
> of the PMC membership is, in my opinion, a major failing of process which
> was designed to identify people with sufficient merit. I would have thought


Actually, I explicitly mentioned this, and more than once, in the
earlier phase of this process.

-Rob

> all of your active mentors have earned sufficient merit and should have
> been invited to join. Furthermore, at least on mentor indicated a desire to
> serve on the PMC, so there was no need for it to "occur" to anyone, it was
> explicit.
>
> This is the first time I've seen a PPMC fail nominate its active mentors as
> PMC members. There is a lesson in there for the community but it is no
> longer my place to convey what I think that lesson is (since my last mail
> was my last as a mentor)
>
> Ross

Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:
> Am 10/14/2012 05:17 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Marcus (OOo)
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>
 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)
 wrote:
>
>
> Am 10/10/2012 09:08 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>
>> On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/test/ ...
>>> I am invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
>>> sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It's nice indeed. I only see the "Valid XHTML" icon positioned a bit
>> too
>> high maybe... Is it wanted?
>> http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png
>>
>> And, by the way, clicking on it reveals that there are a couple of
>> markup fixes to apply, but I don't know if those are due to the CMS or
>> to specific markup of the page.
>
>
>
>
> Currenty it's 1 warning and 1 error. The warning comes because the
> validator
> uses a new HTML 5 checker which is still in Beta status. IMHO it's
> irrelevant.
>
> The error is due to the "PUBLISHER" tag in the link reference (line 8).
>
> Due to the following webpage "PUBLISHER" is no valid HTML style.
> However
> I
> wouldn't change it as it seems to be used for Google index referencing:
>

 If you make it lower case "publisher" it should be OK.

 -Rob

>
>
> http://www.thoughtsfromgeeks.com/resources/2793-Rel-publisher-standard-HTML-markup-or.aspx
>
> Marcus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've made the change but this doesn't make a difference, see:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links
>>>
>>
>> Look at the detailed error message here:
>>
>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3a%2f%2fwww.openoffice.org%2ftest%2f
>>
>> It looks like the W3C Validator looks at more than the values in the
>> HTML specification.  They also look at the Microformats Wiki:
>>
>>
>> http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions
>>
>> "publisher" is listed there.
>>
>> Of course, that is what the error message says.  I have no idea if the
>> Validator actually works that way ;-)
>
>
> For me the Wiki says "do not use 'publisher', it's no longer valid HTML 4.x
> style":


Maybe you are not seeing what I am seeing.

The W3C Validator says:

"Syntax of link type valid for :
A whitespace-separated list of link types listed as allowed on
 in the HTML specification or listed as an allowed on  on
the Microformats wiki without duplicate keywords in the list. You can
register link types on the Microformats wiki yourself."

It links to this Microformats wiki page:

http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions

It says there:

" HTML5 link type extensions

The following values are registered as link type extensions per the
requirements in the WHATWG HTML spec and the requirements in the W3C
HTML5 spec. "

And in that table "publisher" is defined.


> rel value | summary | defining specification | why dropped
> ---
> publisher | identifies a hypertext link to a publisher | HTML4dropped |
> unknown
>
> However, it could come back in HTML 5 as it's already proposed:
>
> Keyword | Effect on link | Effect on a, area | Brief description | Link to
> specification | Synonyms | Status
> ---
> publisher | External Resource | Contextual External Resource | indicate[s]
> that the destination of that hyperlink is a metadata profile (e.g. a social
> / real name profile like Google+) for the current page or portion thereof. |
> rel-publisher | proposed
>
> And IMHO the validator recognizes this already.
>
> But when deleting it from our webpage I can imagine what would happen. ;-),
> so we should leave all as it is for the moment.
>

The question is whether we want to declare the page as HTML4, XHTML4
or HTML5.  Right now we don't declare anything specific.  So the
Validator assumes we're HTML5 and uses those rules.  If we want to be
validated as HTML 4.01 Transitional then we should declare that
doctype.

But honestly, the website is all over the place, with a mix of
markups.  I don't know if it really makes sense to have the W3C Valid
HTML on the home page, since we cannot claim this even for that single
page.  Maybe we should just remove it?


-Rob
> Marcus

Re: Graduation timeline: A reminder for project members, press and list observers

Sent from my tablet
On Oct 13, 2012 11:00 PM, "Kay Schenk"  wrote:
>

?..

>
> It never occurred to me that any of them would have necessarily been
> interested.

The fact that it never occurred to anyone participating in the definition
of the PMC membership is, in my opinion, a major failing of process which
was designed to identify people with sufficient merit. I would have thought
all of your active mentors have earned sufficient merit and should have
been invited to join. Furthermore, at least on mentor indicated a desire to
serve on the PMC, so there was no need for it to "occur" to anyone, it was
explicit.

This is the first time I've seen a PPMC fail nominate its active mentors as
PMC members. There is a lesson in there for the community but it is no
longer my place to convey what I think that lesson is (since my last mail
was my last as a mentor)

Ross

Re: Problems sign in consultants directory

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> This is covered in the instructions here:
>>
>> "If you are not familiar with XML, please submit the equivalent
>> information in a post to the ooo-dev list and we can help you format
>> it for submission. But your listing will appear faster if it is
>> submitted in the proper form."
>>
>> Reference:
>> http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultant-submission.html
>
> Yes, but ...
>
> i think this reference is perhaps not the totally appropriate assistance. 
> Please consider two things:
>
> - not all speak english well and want to post on mailing-lists

I understand.  We can add translations of that page if you think it would help.

But the mailing list post is required as part of the process.  A
listing in the consultants directory is not a right.  It is not
guaranteed.  It requires review by the PMC, and the PMC does its work
openly on the ooo-dev list.  The submittor does not need to subscribe
to ooo-dev, but they do need to submit there listing here.  So even if
we find ways to automate this, we would want to ensure that any
automation sends a copy of the submission to ooo-dev.

-Rob

> - in our invitation we actually ask others to help us (yes, I think offer 
> services for AOO is help for us) - not vice versa.
>
>> A form with Javascript to form the XML might be useful sometime, but
>> it is possible that the XML schema might change based on feedback we
>> receive during this initial phase of submissions.  So it might be
>> better to wait.
>
> OK.
>
> Greetings,
> Jörg
>

Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page

Am 10/14/2012 05:17 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:

Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)
wrote:

Am 10/10/2012 09:08 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:

http://www.openoffice.org/test/ ...
I am invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.

It's nice indeed. I only see the "Valid XHTML" icon positioned a bit too
high maybe... Is it wanted?
http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png

And, by the way, clicking on it reveals that there are a couple of
markup fixes to apply, but I don't know if those are due to the CMS or
to specific markup of the page.

Currenty it's 1 warning and 1 error. The warning comes because the
validator
uses a new HTML 5 checker which is still in Beta status. IMHO it's
irrelevant.

The error is due to the "PUBLISHER" tag in the link reference (line 8).

Due to the following webpage "PUBLISHER" is no valid HTML style. However
I
wouldn't change it as it seems to be used for Google index referencing:

If you make it lower case "publisher" it should be OK.

-Rob

http://www.thoughtsfromgeeks.com/resources/2793-Rel-publisher-standard-HTML-markup-or.aspx

Marcus

I've made the change but this doesn't make a difference, see:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links

Look at the detailed error message here:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3a%2f%2fwww.openoffice.org%2ftest%2f

It looks like the W3C Validator looks at more than the values in the
HTML specification. They also look at the Microformats Wiki:

http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions

"publisher" is listed there.

Of course, that is what the error message says. I have no idea if the
Validator actually works that way ;-)

For me the Wiki says "do not use 'publisher', it's no longer valid HTML
4.x style":

However, it could come back in HTML 5 as it's already proposed:

And IMHO the validator recognizes this already.

But when deleting it from our webpage I can imagine what would happen.
;-), so we should leave all as it is for the moment.

Marcus

Re: Graduation timeline: A reminder for project members, press and list observers

Sent from my tablet
On Oct 12, 2012 6:29 PM, "Andrea Pescetti"  wrote:
>

...

>
> As a minor update, the only observation we received so far (besides a
substantial number of +1 votes, no abstentions or -1) was that almost all
the proposed PMC members do not belong to other Apache projects; our
mentors were asked if they perceived this as a problem, and we didn't get
an answer from them so far.
>

Actually the observation was that there's only one Member. The motivation
behind this concern is twofold (note this is my interpretation, not
necessarily the view of the person asking the question):

This is a large and complex project that is requiring the ASF to adapt in
many areas and resist other changes. Therefore the Membership needs to be
in agreement about foundational issues. The lack of members on the PMC
means might be limited early visibility into upcoming foundational issues.

Secondly, this is a large and complex project that would benefit a great
deal from the ongoing support of ASF Members from a community perspective.
I, and other mentors voted +1 on the recommendation so clearly we believe
that the PPMC is in good shape. But it doesn't yet have deep roots in the
Apache Way. This is not about the health of the PPMC it is about the need
for guidance (for example, I like to think I'm pretty much in control of my
own affairs but I still bounce things to my life coach occasionally).
However, graduating doesn't remove access to mentoring, it just changes the
role of those mentors.

These things need to be remembered by the community as a whole. In
particular members need to ensure that they actively engage with the ASF
and use the support and guidance available to ensure AOO continues to
develop healthily. Personaly, I see a problem that needs to be managed but
not one that should slow graduation.

Hopefully this will be the last time I speak with an official mentor hat on
;)

Ross

> Regards,
>   Andrea.

Re: Problems sign in consultants directory

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:
> On 10/14/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:
>>> Please write an example on the page, not just throw the XML file doing
>>> something as simple as
>>> 
>>> Your company
>>> foo street at disneyland
>>> http://www.yourcompany.com
>>> 
>>>
>>
>> There is an entire file of real examples linked to from that page:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/bizdev/consultants/consultants.xml
>
> My point exactly. I would rather see this shown as HTML/ASCII, the XML
> dump is not bad but usually end up in  hard to read spew of data that
> non-technical users can't understand what happened.
>
>>
>>> Would go a long way, the instructions look a bit too technical for
>>> regular users. Even if we assume this are technical people, we should
>>> think this is being applied by the marketing intern used to facebook.
>>>
>>> I would even suggest doing an XForm to generate this XML and spew it
>>> on a texboard with a copy-paste this on your email.
>>>
>>
>> Patches are welcome.
>
> Here is an XForm sample:
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>   
> 
>  action="submit.asp"
> method="get"/>
> 
> First Name
> Last Name
> Submit
> 
>

The form is the easy part.  The hard part is getting it integrated in
a way that works with our current server environment.  As you've
probably noticed we don't have mail-in forms anywhere on our website.
Perhaps there are some security issues here?  Infra would know.  But
there would be some work to either enable the server-side processing
of this, or of generating the XML with instructions for the user to
copy/paste it into an email to ooo-dev.

Personally I don't think the expected volume of submissions justifies
the time required to put further automation into play.  (My personal
opinion).  As the instructions say, the submittor can just send
equivalent information to the list and we can do the XML formatting
for them.

-Rob

>>
>>> Specially consider the speciality would be all over the place as a
>>> freeform XML.
>>>
>>
>> In the current form it is restricted to enumerated values.  This list
>
> Oh there is a form, I most have missed that.
>
>> can expand on request, but I'd like to not have it be freeform so it
>> can be used as a categorization field.  The  field is the
>> freeform field, where they can put anything relevant.
>>
>>> On 10/14/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Jörg Schmidt 
 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I now have sent an invitation to 41 companies relating to an entry in
> the
> directory:
> http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultants.html
>
> And I got the first reply:
>
> 
>> Listings must be submitted to the ooo-dev mailing list as patches to
>> the
>> file consultants.xml
>  >
>
> nicht Ihr Ernst, oder?
> 
>
> No problem in this individual case, because I offered my personal help,
> but I think it may seem too complicated for some users even having to
> create an XML file.
>
> What can we do?
>
> For example, i could write a macro for AOO with an input dialog, which
> simplifies the creation of the XML file. But I need a few days time.
>
> Hints?
>

 This is covered in the instructions here:

 "If you are not familiar with XML, please submit the equivalent
 information in a post to the ooo-dev list and we can help you format
 it for submission. But your listing will appear faster if it is
 submitted in the proper form."

 Reference:  http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultant-submission.html

 A form with Javascript to form the XML might be useful sometime, but
 it is possible that the XML schema might change based on feedback we
 receive during this initial phase of submissions.  So it might be
 better to wait.

 -Rob


>
>
> Greetings,
> Jörg
>

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alexandro Colorado
>>> PPMC Apache OpenOffice
>>> http://es.openoffice.org
>>
>
>
> --
> Alexandro Colorado
> PPMC Apache OpenOffice
> http://es.openoffice.org

Re: Problems sign in consultants directory

Hello,

> This is covered in the instructions here:
> 
> "If you are not familiar with XML, please submit the equivalent
> information in a post to the ooo-dev list and we can help you format
> it for submission. But your listing will appear faster if it is
> submitted in the proper form."
> 
> Reference:  
> http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultant-submission.html

Yes, but ...

i think this reference is perhaps not the totally appropriate assistance. 
Please consider two things:

- not all speak english well and want to post on mailing-lists

- in our invitation we actually ask others to help us (yes, I think offer 
services for AOO is help for us) - not vice versa.

> A form with Javascript to form the XML might be useful sometime, but
> it is possible that the XML schema might change based on feedback we
> receive during this initial phase of submissions.  So it might be
> better to wait.

OK.

Greetings,
Jörg

Re: Problems sign in consultants directory

2012-10-14 Thread Alexandro Colorado

On 10/14/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:
>> Please write an example on the page, not just throw the XML file doing
>> something as simple as
>> 
>> Your company
>> foo street at disneyland
>> http://www.yourcompany.com
>> 
>>
>
> There is an entire file of real examples linked to from that page:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/bizdev/consultants/consultants.xml

My point exactly. I would rather see this shown as HTML/ASCII, the XML
dump is not bad but usually end up in  hard to read spew of data that
non-technical users can't understand what happened.

>
>> Would go a long way, the instructions look a bit too technical for
>> regular users. Even if we assume this are technical people, we should
>> think this is being applied by the marketing intern used to facebook.
>>
>> I would even suggest doing an XForm to generate this XML and spew it
>> on a texboard with a copy-paste this on your email.
>>
>
> Patches are welcome.

Here is an XForm sample:



  


  



First Name
Last Name
Submit


>
>> Specially consider the speciality would be all over the place as a
>> freeform XML.
>>
>
> In the current form it is restricted to enumerated values.  This list

Oh there is a form, I most have missed that.

> can expand on request, but I'd like to not have it be freeform so it
> can be used as a categorization field.  The  field is the
> freeform field, where they can put anything relevant.
>
>> On 10/14/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Jörg Schmidt 
>>> wrote:
 Hello,

 I now have sent an invitation to 41 companies relating to an entry in
 the
 directory:
 http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultants.html

 And I got the first reply:

 
> Listings must be submitted to the ooo-dev mailing list as patches to
> the
> file consultants.xml
  >

 nicht Ihr Ernst, oder?
 

 No problem in this individual case, because I offered my personal help,
 but I think it may seem too complicated for some users even having to
 create an XML file.

 What can we do?

 For example, i could write a macro for AOO with an input dialog, which
 simplifies the creation of the XML file. But I need a few days time.

 Hints?

>>>
>>> This is covered in the instructions here:
>>>
>>> "If you are not familiar with XML, please submit the equivalent
>>> information in a post to the ooo-dev list and we can help you format
>>> it for submission. But your listing will appear faster if it is
>>> submitted in the proper form."
>>>
>>> Reference:  http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultant-submission.html
>>>
>>> A form with Javascript to form the XML might be useful sometime, but
>>> it is possible that the XML schema might change based on feedback we
>>> receive during this initial phase of submissions.  So it might be
>>> better to wait.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>


 Greetings,
 Jörg

>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alexandro Colorado
>> PPMC Apache OpenOffice
>> http://es.openoffice.org
>


-- 
Alexandro Colorado
PPMC Apache OpenOffice
http://es.openoffice.org

Re: Problems sign in consultants directory

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:
> Please write an example on the page, not just throw the XML file doing
> something as simple as
> 
> Your company
> foo street at disneyland
> http://www.yourcompany.com
> 
>

There is an entire file of real examples linked to from that page:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ooo-site/trunk/content/bizdev/consultants/consultants.xml

> Would go a long way, the instructions look a bit too technical for
> regular users. Even if we assume this are technical people, we should
> think this is being applied by the marketing intern used to facebook.
>
> I would even suggest doing an XForm to generate this XML and spew it
> on a texboard with a copy-paste this on your email.
>

Patches are welcome.

> Specially consider the speciality would be all over the place as a freeform 
> XML.
>

In the current form it is restricted to enumerated values.  This list
can expand on request, but I'd like to not have it be freeform so it
can be used as a categorization field.  The  field is the
freeform field, where they can put anything relevant.

> On 10/14/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Jörg Schmidt 
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I now have sent an invitation to 41 companies relating to an entry in the
>>> directory:
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultants.html
>>>
>>> And I got the first reply:
>>>
>>> 
 Listings must be submitted to the ooo-dev mailing list as patches to the
 file consultants.xml
>>>  >
>>>
>>> nicht Ihr Ernst, oder?
>>> 
>>>
>>> No problem in this individual case, because I offered my personal help,
>>> but I think it may seem too complicated for some users even having to
>>> create an XML file.
>>>
>>> What can we do?
>>>
>>> For example, i could write a macro for AOO with an input dialog, which
>>> simplifies the creation of the XML file. But I need a few days time.
>>>
>>> Hints?
>>>
>>
>> This is covered in the instructions here:
>>
>> "If you are not familiar with XML, please submit the equivalent
>> information in a post to the ooo-dev list and we can help you format
>> it for submission. But your listing will appear faster if it is
>> submitted in the proper form."
>>
>> Reference:  http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultant-submission.html
>>
>> A form with Javascript to form the XML might be useful sometime, but
>> it is possible that the XML schema might change based on feedback we
>> receive during this initial phase of submissions.  So it might be
>> better to wait.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Jörg
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Alexandro Colorado
> PPMC Apache OpenOffice
> http://es.openoffice.org

Re: Problems sign in consultants directory

2012-10-14 Thread Alexandro Colorado

Please write an example on the page, not just throw the XML file doing
something as simple as

Your company
foo street at disneyland
http://www.yourcompany.com


Would go a long way, the instructions look a bit too technical for
regular users. Even if we assume this are technical people, we should
think this is being applied by the marketing intern used to facebook.

I would even suggest doing an XForm to generate this XML and spew it
on a texboard with a copy-paste this on your email.

Specially consider the speciality would be all over the place as a freeform XML.

On 10/14/12, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Jörg Schmidt 
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I now have sent an invitation to 41 companies relating to an entry in the
>> directory:
>> http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultants.html
>>
>> And I got the first reply:
>>
>> 
>>> Listings must be submitted to the ooo-dev mailing list as patches to the
>>> file consultants.xml
>>  >
>>
>> nicht Ihr Ernst, oder?
>> 
>>
>> No problem in this individual case, because I offered my personal help,
>> but I think it may seem too complicated for some users even having to
>> create an XML file.
>>
>> What can we do?
>>
>> For example, i could write a macro for AOO with an input dialog, which
>> simplifies the creation of the XML file. But I need a few days time.
>>
>> Hints?
>>
>
> This is covered in the instructions here:
>
> "If you are not familiar with XML, please submit the equivalent
> information in a post to the ooo-dev list and we can help you format
> it for submission. But your listing will appear faster if it is
> submitted in the proper form."
>
> Reference:  http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultant-submission.html
>
> A form with Javascript to form the XML might be useful sometime, but
> it is possible that the XML schema might change based on feedback we
> receive during this initial phase of submissions.  So it might be
> better to wait.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Jörg
>>
>


-- 
Alexandro Colorado
PPMC Apache OpenOffice
http://es.openoffice.org

Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:
> Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 10/10/2012 09:08 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>
 On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/test/ ...
> I am invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
> sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.



 It's nice indeed. I only see the "Valid XHTML" icon positioned a bit too
 high maybe... Is it wanted?
 http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png

 And, by the way, clicking on it reveals that there are a couple of
 markup fixes to apply, but I don't know if those are due to the CMS or
 to specific markup of the page.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Currenty it's 1 warning and 1 error. The warning comes because the
>>> validator
>>> uses a new HTML 5 checker which is still in Beta status. IMHO it's
>>> irrelevant.
>>>
>>> The error is due to the "PUBLISHER" tag in the link reference (line 8).
>>>
>>> Due to the following webpage "PUBLISHER" is no valid HTML style. However
>>> I
>>> wouldn't change it as it seems to be used for Google index referencing:
>>>
>>
>> If you make it lower case "publisher" it should be OK.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.thoughtsfromgeeks.com/resources/2793-Rel-publisher-standard-HTML-markup-or.aspx
>>>
>>> Marcus
>
>
> I've made the change but this doesn't make a difference, see:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links
>

Look at the detailed error message here:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3a%2f%2fwww.openoffice.org%2ftest%2f

It looks like the W3C Validator looks at more than the values in the
HTML specification.  They also look at the Microformats Wiki:

http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions

"publisher" is listed there.

Of course, that is what the error message says.  I have no idea if the
Validator actually works that way ;-)

-Rob


> Marcus

Re: Problems sign in consultants directory

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I now have sent an invitation to 41 companies relating to an entry in the 
> directory:
> http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultants.html
>
> And I got the first reply:
>
> 
>> Listings must be submitted to the ooo-dev mailing list as patches to the 
>> file consultants.xml
>  >
>
> nicht Ihr Ernst, oder?
> 
>
> No problem in this individual case, because I offered my personal help, but I 
> think it may seem too complicated for some users even having to create an XML 
> file.
>
> What can we do?
>
> For example, i could write a macro for AOO with an input dialog, which 
> simplifies the creation of the XML file. But I need a few days time.
>
> Hints?
>

This is covered in the instructions here:

"If you are not familiar with XML, please submit the equivalent
information in a post to the ooo-dev list and we can help you format
it for submission. But your listing will appear faster if it is
submitted in the proper form."

Reference:  http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultant-submission.html

A form with Javascript to form the XML might be useful sometime, but
it is possible that the XML schema might change based on feedback we
receive during this initial phase of submissions.  So it might be
better to wait.

-Rob

>
>
> Greetings,
> Jörg
>

Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page


Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:

Am 10/10/2012 09:08 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:


On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:


http://www.openoffice.org/test/ ...
I am invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.



It's nice indeed. I only see the "Valid XHTML" icon positioned a bit too
high maybe... Is it wanted?
http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png

And, by the way, clicking on it reveals that there are a couple of
markup fixes to apply, but I don't know if those are due to the CMS or
to specific markup of the page.



Currenty it's 1 warning and 1 error. The warning comes because the validator
uses a new HTML 5 checker which is still in Beta status. IMHO it's
irrelevant.

The error is due to the "PUBLISHER" tag in the link reference (line 8).

Due to the following webpage "PUBLISHER" is no valid HTML style. However I
wouldn't change it as it seems to be used for Google index referencing:



If you make it lower case "publisher" it should be OK.

-Rob


http://www.thoughtsfromgeeks.com/resources/2793-Rel-publisher-standard-HTML-markup-or.aspx

Marcus


I've made the change but this doesn't make a difference, see:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links

Marcus

Problems sign in consultants directory

Hello,

I now have sent an invitation to 41 companies relating to an entry in the 
directory:
http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultants.html

And I got the first reply:


> Listings must be submitted to the ooo-dev mailing list as patches to the file 
> consultants.xml
 >

nicht Ihr Ernst, oder?


No problem in this individual case, because I offered my personal help, but I 
think it may seem too complicated for some users even having to create an XML 
file.

What can we do?

For example, i could write a macro for AOO with an input dialog, which 
simplifies the creation of the XML file. But I need a few days time.

Hints?



Greetings,
Jörg

Re: Apache OO General Questions

2012-10-14 Thread Pedro Giffuni

--- Dom 14/10/12, Eike Rathke ha scritto:

> Hi Pedro,
> 
> On Saturday, 2012-10-13 18:07:24 -0700, Pedro Giffuni
> wrote:
> 
> > This said, the latest versions of LO introduce bugs
> > that I can't
> > reproduce on AOO. AOO is very stable and we want to
> keep it that way.
> 
> Thanks. The latest version of AOO also still didn't fix bugs
> that are fixed since long in LO and did not implement the features
> that LO has.
> 
> What I want to say is that we're getting nowhere with
> pointing fingers.
> 
I wasnt pointing fingers: I am just saying we cant really take patches blindly 
and expect them to work fine even if the licensing permits it.

I see that all days in other projects: in FreeBSD we can take patches from 
NetBSD and DragonFly without asking for permission, but patches that work there 
dont necessarily fix issues in FreeBSD.

As I see it neither AOO and LO will disappear and both projects will keep 
diverging and it is not necessarily a bad thing.

Pedro.

Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)  wrote:
> Am 10/10/2012 09:08 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>
>> On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/test/ ...
>>> I am invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
>>> sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.
>>
>>
>> It's nice indeed. I only see the "Valid XHTML" icon positioned a bit too
>> high maybe... Is it wanted?
>> http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png
>>
>> And, by the way, clicking on it reveals that there are a couple of
>> markup fixes to apply, but I don't know if those are due to the CMS or
>> to specific markup of the page.
>
>
> Currenty it's 1 warning and 1 error. The warning comes because the validator
> uses a new HTML 5 checker which is still in Beta status. IMHO it's
> irrelevant.
>
> The error is due to the "PUBLISHER" tag in the link reference (line 8).
>
> Due to the following webpage "PUBLISHER" is no valid HTML style. However I
> wouldn't change it as it seems to be used for Google index referencing:
>

If you make it lower case "publisher" it should be OK.

-Rob

> http://www.thoughtsfromgeeks.com/resources/2793-Rel-publisher-standard-HTML-markup-or.aspx
>
> Marcus

Re: Ask for advice:cloud office interoperability

2012-10-14 Thread Zhun Guo

cloud  office productivity documents website: how to make both user
experience  consistent , for users between different  websites, with the
experience  for users within the same site ? interoperability of  cloud
office productivity documents ?  This is my question. Thanks!

Re: Apache OO General Questions

Hello, 

> From: Eike Rathke [mailto:o...@erack.de] 

> What I want to say is that we're getting nowhere with 
> pointing fingers.

yes, indeed.

Only this is not a one-way street.

For example, i will never forget what the FSF said against AOO:
http://www.fsf.org/news/openoffice-apache-libreoffice

and I'm watching very very attentively what the TDF is doing - in the past and
currently.


Yes, I am (since 8 years) only a simple member of the community and not a real
developer, but that's my opinion.



Greetings,
Jörg

Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page


Am 10/10/2012 05:29 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Andrea Pescettiwrote:


On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:


http://www.openoffice.org/**test/  ...

I am  invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.



It's nice indeed. I only see the "Valid XHTML" icon positioned a bit too
high maybe... Is it wanted?
http://people.apache.org/~**pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png

And, by the way, clicking on it reveals that there are a couple of markup
fixes to apply, but I don't know if those are due to the CMS or to specific
markup of the page.



hmmm...thanks for the feedback. Yes, the positioning can be changed and I
will look at the fixes it tags.


I've changed the positioning of the W3C validator logo to show it left 
aligned. IMHO it's looking better than stuck to the rightmost. I hope 
you don't mind.


Marcus

Re: [PROPOSAL][WWW] style and content changes to home page


Am 10/10/2012 09:08 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:

http://www.openoffice.org/test/ ...
I am invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.


It's nice indeed. I only see the "Valid XHTML" icon positioned a bit too
high maybe... Is it wanted?
http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png

And, by the way, clicking on it reveals that there are a couple of
markup fixes to apply, but I don't know if those are due to the CMS or
to specific markup of the page.


Currenty it's 1 warning and 1 error. The warning comes because the 
validator uses a new HTML 5 checker which is still in Beta status. IMHO 
it's irrelevant.


The error is due to the "PUBLISHER" tag in the link reference (line 8).

Due to the following webpage "PUBLISHER" is no valid HTML style. However 
I wouldn't change it as it seems to be used for Google index referencing:


http://www.thoughtsfromgeeks.com/resources/2793-Rel-publisher-standard-HTML-markup-or.aspx

Marcus

Re: Ipad application

2012-10-14 Thread Ian Lynch

On 14 October 2012 05:01, Peter Junge  wrote:

> On 10/14/2012 12:06 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
>>
>>  Hi Wayne;
>>>
>>> I am not aware of anyone working with us on an iOS port.
>>>
>>> The IBM Lotus Symphony Viewer will work for read-only purposes:
>>> https://itunes.apple.com/us/**app/ibm-lotus-symphony-viewer/**
>>> id482597218?mt=8
>>>
>>>
>>> And there's also RollApp:
>>>
>>> https://www.rollapp.com/**OpenOffice
>>>
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> Pedro.
>>>
>>>
>> This reminds me...do we want to add "rollapp" to the porting page?
>>
>>   https://www.rollapp.com/**OpenOffice
>>
>
> It's certainly considerable.

Something like this is probably the best option in the short term for a
"cloud based" or" mobile version" of AOO. It might even be a better option
to support this method than keep having to port to many mobile OSs. We need
to consider this in marketing. If it can be made to work well it might be
better for some organisations than having to install, maintain and upgrade
local network versions of AOO. I know at least one school that has gone
back to MSO after having problems managing OOo on their network.

Peter
>
>>
>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>>
 From: Wayne R. Campbell
 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
 Cc:
 Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:55 AM
 Subject: Ipad application

 I have just bought an IPad and would like to load your word and

>>> spreadsheet
>>>
 software. Do you have software for the IPad or do I have to buy

>>> something?
>>>

 Love the software!!!
 Thanks

 Wayne Campbell

>>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.

Re: Consultants Directory: Update and Help Needed