Matthew,
Sometimes, the PDF converter make a "picture" at 96 dpi off the parts
off the doc ( a frame, table or even the complete document) who contains
elements who can not been converted to PDF. Transparency is the most
likely cause for this . Then your text is in pixels at 96 dpi and looks
On 29/07/11 16:09, matthewdedwards wrote:
I originally created my document using OpenOffice. During the riff raff IP
wars, I converted to LibreOffice. My document is in ODT format and looks
good with a little tweaking (and learning curve built-in). I also created
all of my pictures (inserted into
I originally created my document using OpenOffice. During the riff raff IP
wars, I converted to LibreOffice. My document is in ODT format and looks
good with a little tweaking (and learning curve built-in). I also created
all of my pictures (inserted into the document) in OpenOffice as XCF
initiall
On 29/07/11 00:03, toki wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 04:21 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>
>> All that I see & know for sure is that it took 5 years and the code
> still is not in the repo.
>
> IBM claims that since it was in an OOo 1.1.x branch, it was in the repo,
> and that it is Sun's fault that it
On 07/28/2011 04:21 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> All that I see & know for sure is that it took 5 years and the code
still is not in the repo.
IBM claims that since it was in an OOo 1.1.x branch, it was in the repo,
and that it is Sun's fault that it wasn't incorporated into OOo 2.x, or
OOo 3.
Thank you very much for this. I had completely fogotten.
Leif
Den 28/07/2011 23.19 skrev "Thorsten Behrens" :
> Jomar Silva wrote:
>> I support the initial idea of concentrating our work force on better
>> ODF support and functionality improvements in LO, but I also
>> understand the need that pe
Jomar Silva wrote:
> I support the initial idea of concentrating our work force on better
> ODF support and functionality improvements in LO, but I also
> understand the need that people have to use LO to manipulate MSO
> documents.
>
I think both is crucial to the success of LibO.
Since this dis
Leif Lodahl wrote:
Disagree.
If we dont support ms file formats, the users will keep bying ms office. If
we support ms formats users who are willing to shift will be abole to shift.
Today one of the most important stopperts is problems with legacy documents
and exchange of documents with extern
Disagree.
If we dont support ms file formats, the users will keep bying ms office. If
we support ms formats users who are willing to shift will be abole to shift.
Today one of the most important stopperts is problems with legacy documents
and exchange of documents with external parties.
First we
Hi
What you say is almost that we should give up on ODF and stick with
Microsoft formats...
I would prefer that LO import MSO format flawlessly but not export them at
all...
Olivier
2011/7/28 Tanstaafl
> On 2011-07-28 4:40 PM, Jomar Silva wrote:
> > In summary: It's good to users that we sup
On 2011-07-28 4:40 PM, Jomar Silva wrote:
> In summary: It's good to users that we support MSO files, but the real
> world side effect of that is that people will keep using MSO files...
> it's up to us to find a way to change the Status Quo in a smooth way
It'll never happen...
For better or wo
I'm following this thread since the last week and I believe that this
is an extremely important discussion for us all.
I support the initial idea of concentrating our work force on better
ODF support and functionality improvements in LO, but I also
understand the need that people have to use LO to
Noticed by chance that Java 7.0 was released today. It's not in the
normal update cycle yet, but you can download it from:
www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/java-se-jre-7-download-432155.html
It installs and works fine in a number of apps (eg Jedit), but I can't
get LO 3.4.1 to r
Hello,
2011/7/25 Charles-H. Schulz
> Hello Christian,
>
> 2011/7/25 Christian Lohmaier
>
>> Hi Charles, *;
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Charles-H. Schulz
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I am very serious about that :-) but it does not imply we should not
>> take
>> > accessibility into account.
Hi Christophe, *,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Christophe Strobbe
wrote:
> At 18:21 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Christophe Strobbe
>> wrote:
>> > At 16:14 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe
Hi Christian, All,
This is my fifth attempt to send a response to
the list (after previous attempts on 5, 8, 15 and
26 July). I hope it gets through this time.
At 18:21 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
Hi Christophe, *,
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Christophe Strobbe
wrote:
> At 16
Hi *,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Christian Lohmaier
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Christophe Strobbe
> wrote:
>
> This address is subscribe, so no moderation necessary, no delays
> because of manual intervention. So when there is a problem, then it is
> on a technical level.
I
17 matches
Mail list logo
