On 07/06/2011 03:45 AM, Robert Derman wrote:
Ian Lynch wrote:
On 5 July 2011 21:58, Robert Derman
wrote:
e-letter wrote:
As far as the request for the ability to download individual
components of LO, this should not be enabled. The whole concept of the
predecessor staroffice product was to
On 6 July 2011 08:45, Robert Derman wrote:
Someone explained here in a more detailed and understandable way just what
> the nature of the design of Staroffice actually is. That in fact it is just
> one big program and the different modules are just different about 300 K
> each user interfaces wh
Ian Lynch wrote:
On 5 July 2011 21:58, Robert Derman wrote:
e-letter wrote:
As far as the request for the ability to download individual
components of LO, this should not be enabled. The whole concept of the
predecessor staroffice product was to provide various functionalities
in ter
On 5 July 2011 21:58, Robert Derman wrote:
> e-letter wrote:
>
>> As far as the request for the ability to download individual
>> components of LO, this should not be enabled. The whole concept of the
>> predecessor staroffice product was to provide various functionalities
>> in terms of word-pro
e-letter wrote:
As far as the request for the ability to download individual
components of LO, this should not be enabled. The whole concept of the
predecessor staroffice product was to provide various functionalities
in terms of word-processing, spreadsheets, drawing, etc. and this
should be con
As far as the request for the ability to download individual
components of LO, this should not be enabled. The whole concept of the
predecessor staroffice product was to provide various functionalities
in terms of word-processing, spreadsheets, drawing, etc. and this
should be continued.
Those see
On 3 July 2011 21:38, Robert Derman wrote:
> Ian Lynch wrote:
>
>> On 2 July 2011 23:22, Robert Derman wrote
>>
>>
>>> Keith Curtis wrote:
>>>
>>>
The problem with building a reader is that it would be about the same
size
as LibreOffice. OpenDocument is very different from PDF. Fo
Ian Lynch wrote:
On 2 July 2011 23:22, Robert Derman wrote:
Keith Curtis wrote:
The problem with building a reader is that it would be about the same size
as LibreOffice. OpenDocument is very different from PDF. For those who
can't
install LO, they probably can't install the reader e
On 2 July 2011 23:22, Robert Derman wrote:
> Keith Curtis wrote:
>
>> The problem with building a reader is that it would be about the same size
>> as LibreOffice. OpenDocument is very different from PDF. For those who
>> can't
>> install LO, they probably can't install the reader either.
>>
>>
>
Keith Curtis wrote:
The problem with building a reader is that it would be about the same size
as LibreOffice. OpenDocument is very different from PDF. For those who can't
install LO, they probably can't install the reader either.
Perhaps separating the modules of LO so that users could downlo
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> The solution here is for you to make DOC,
> etc. your default format so that the computer will do the right thing even
> when you forget. The long-term solution is for people to standardize on
> ODF.
>
My SME company is totally libO..so that
The problem with building a reader is that it would be about the same size
as LibreOffice. OpenDocument is very different from PDF. For those who can't
install LO, they probably can't install the reader either.
You have to think about file formats when interacting with people, just like
you have t
I am just a user, but have been using Oo for 3-4 years & now libO. The
biggest issue I face is when I forget to save a file to doc format
before emailing it to somebody who uses MS Off.
I end up having to resend it in doc format.
I try to avoid this by telling my associates to get libO, so that w
On 2011-06-25, Ian Lynch wrote:
> On 25 June 2011 10:02, timofonic timofonic wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Nuno J. Silva
>> wrote:
>> > On 2011-06-24, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> >
>> >> This, however, won't work. Document fidelity is not the aim of ODT
>> >> files, while it is the
ading, you have
to click on a sub file and then go up to the folder you want.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Derman [mailto:robert.der...@pressenter.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:55
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader"
@pressenter.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:55
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF
Reader"
Sean White wrote:
> I dont thinks thats normal somehow, i have been using Adobe Reader for years
&
Sean White wrote:
I dont thinks thats normal somehow, i have been using Adobe Reader for years
and have NEVER had it come past 200MB.
Back to discussion, what's with all the PDF hate.
Actually I don't hate PDF, I use it frequently and as such I am glad
that OOo and LO have the capability of ou
format? Re: [tdf-discuss]
New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"
Anyway, I don´t consider PDF a proper "OPEN" standard, as it´s not
designed by a global consortium like OASIS.
What about designing a new file format for this purpose and being par
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Nuno J. Silva wrote:
>> I know Evince runs in Windows, just see its download page
>>
>
> I will suggest you to investigate poppler rather than evince. Most floss pdf
> viewers really are based of propper
Anyway, I don´t consider PDF a proper "OPEN" standard, as it´s not
designed by a global consortium like OASIS.
What about designing a new file format for this purpose and being part
of OpenDocument? Some people said DjVu being accurate but lacking some
features (vectorial image support?).
I'm not
On 26 June 2011 01:15, Sean White wrote:
> I dont thinks thats normal somehow, i have been using Adobe Reader for
> years
> and have NEVER had it come past 200MB.
>
ISTR a whole load of adverising crap in one large Acrobat download.
Back to discussion, what's with all the PDF hate.
Not hate,
Message-
>> From: Robert Derman [mailto:robert.der...@pressenter.com] Sent: Thursday,
>> June 23, 2011 21:24
>> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
>> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for
>> "PDF Reader"
>>
>&g
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 25 Jun 2011, at 08:33, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> > Manfred wrote:
> >
> > "I still believe that PDF is the best solution to distribute final
> versions
> > of text (and maybe other office) documents."
> >
> > I'd say yes if they are likely to
"LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF
Reader"
[ ... ]
What I
meant by HUGE when I referred to Adobe Reader was the more than 6 Gigs
of hard drive space it takes up! By contrast all of the LibreOffice
suite of programs takes up 475 Megs of space. That means that
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Nuno J. Silva wrote:
> On 2011-06-24, Robert Derman wrote:
>
> > Varun Mittal wrote:
> >> I personally feel we have more important set of priorities than
> diversifying
> >> right now into PDF reader. Also no point inventing the wheel again when
> >> there are seve
On 25 June 2011 13:37, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 25 Jun 2011, at 08:33, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> > Manfred wrote:
> >
> > "I still believe that PDF is the best solution to distribute final
> versions
> > of text (and maybe other office) documents."
> >
> > I'd say yes if they are likely to be printe
On 25 Jun 2011, at 08:33, Ian Lynch wrote:
> Manfred wrote:
>
> "I still believe that PDF is the best solution to distribute final versions
> of text (and maybe other office) documents."
>
> I'd say yes if they are likely to be printed on paper, no if it is only
> likely to be read from a scree
On 25 June 2011 10:02, timofonic timofonic wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Nuno J. Silva
> wrote:
> > On 2011-06-24, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >
> >> Marc Paré wrote:
> >>> if we were to promote a "quick and dirty"
> >>> "LibreOffice Reader", very much like the "Adobe Acrobat Reader", w
Manfred wrote:
"I still believe that PDF is the best solution to distribute final versions
of text (and maybe other office) documents."
I'd say yes if they are likely to be printed on paper, no if it is only
likely to be read from a screen. Snag is desktop office software originates
from a time w
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:06:17 -0400
Marc Paré wrote:
> Charles H. Schultz has informed us that the OASIS group has no
> intention of embedding fonts for v.1.2, 1.3 or any future versions,
> so getting the same type of fidelity from a LibreOffice Reader will
> not be possible. In this case, if one
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Nuno J. Silva wrote:
> On 2011-06-24, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> Marc Paré wrote:
>>> if we were to promote a "quick and dirty"
>>> "LibreOffice Reader", very much like the "Adobe Acrobat Reader", whose
>>> sole purpose is to provide the ability to "read" ".odt" f
On 2011-06-24, Robert Derman wrote:
> Varun Mittal wrote:
>> I personally feel we have more important set of priorities than diversifying
>> right now into PDF reader. Also no point inventing the wheel again when
>> there are several open source pdf readers available which we can integrate
>> inst
Le 2011-06-24 17:08, toki a écrit :
it is hard for developers out there to make just a viewer when some other folks
have that :( already.
This is the type of project that might be more suitable for the Apache
Software Foundation.
My $0.04 (previous $0.02 + this $0.02) don't add sales tax pleas
On 24/06/2011 00:30, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> I like the idea, don't get me wrong.
+1
>it is hard for developers out there to make just a viewer when some other
>folks have that :( already.
This is the type of project that might be more suitable for the Apache
Software Foundation.
> My $0.
Le 2011-06-24 14:34, Robert Derman a écrit :
On 24/06/2011 03:59, Marc Paré wrote: The initial use of the
"LibreOffice Reader" would be just a plain reader, the challenge
after this would be to try to build as much document fidelity into it
as possible. Again, with the hopes to rival .pdf fid
On 24/06/2011 03:59, Marc Paré wrote: The initial use of the
"LibreOffice Reader" would be just a plain reader, the challenge after
this would be to try to build as much document fidelity into it as
possible. Again, with the hopes to rival .pdf fidelity. Maybe once all
the devs put their head
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Robert Derman
wrote:
> Varun Mittal wrote:
>>
>> I personally feel we have more important set of priorities than
>> diversifying
>> right now into PDF reader. Also no point inventing the wheel again when
>> there are several open source pdf readers available which
Le 2011-06-24 01:55, Mike Hall a écrit :
On 24/06/2011 03:59, Marc Paré wrote:
Marc Paré wrote:
This thread is really about proposing, to the devs, the possibility of
creating a "LibreOffice Reader" similar to the "Adobe .pdf Reader".
This could be an idea to investigate, but I don't know how
On 24/06/2011 03:59, Marc Paré wrote:
Marc Paré wrote:
This thread is really about proposing, to the devs, the possibility of
creating a "LibreOffice Reader" similar to the "Adobe .pdf Reader".
This could be an idea to investigate, but I don't know how feasible it
is; actually there is (or used
"LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF
Reader"
[ ... ]
What I
meant by HUGE when I referred to Adobe Reader was the more than 6 Gigs
of hard drive space it takes up! By contrast all of the LibreOffice
suite of programs takes up 475 Megs of space. That means that a mere
I use a pdf reader called foxit when I am forced to fire up my windows VMs.
I am not sure of its licensing.
On Jun 24, 2011 12:26 AM, "Robert Derman"
wrote:
> Varun Mittal wrote:
>> I personally feel we have more important set of priorities than
diversifying
>> right now into PDF reader. Also no
Varun Mittal wrote:
I personally feel we have more important set of priorities than diversifying
right now into PDF reader. Also no point inventing the wheel again when
there are several open source pdf readers available which we can integrate
instead of developing one of our own.
I am wonder
Le 2011-06-23 22:59, Varun Mittal a écrit :
I personally feel we have more important set of priorities than diversifying
right now into PDF reader. Also no point inventing the wheel again when
there are several open source pdf readers available which we can integrate
instead of developing one of
Le 2011-06-23 17:48, Ian Lynch a écrit :
Main problem is you are effectively competing with MS Office readers that do
a similar job wit .doc but have never displaced pdf. So I think the chances
of a LibO reader displacing pdf are not very high.
IMO, we can take into account the MSO readers, bu
On 23 June 2011 22:40, Marc Paré wrote:
> OK, this is just a teaser to entice people into a discussion of the
> following proposal.
>
> There is talk on the documentation list of the formats made available to
> users of our documents (manuals, reference books, etc). These for now are in
> .odt (O
I personally feel we have more important set of priorities than diversifying
right now into PDF reader. Also no point inventing the wheel again when
there are several open source pdf readers available which we can integrate
instead of developing one of our own.
Won't it be a better idea to collabo
Marc Paré wrote:
This thread is really about proposing, to the devs, the possibility of
creating a "LibreOffice Reader" similar to the "Adobe .pdf Reader".
This could be an idea to investigate, but I don't know how feasible it
is; actually there is (or used to be) a "read only" mode in
OpenOffic
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 17:40 -0400, Marc Paré wrote:
OK, this is just a teaser to entice people into a discussion of the
following proposal.
There is talk on the documentation list of the formats made available to
users of our documents (manuals, reference books, etc). These for now
are in .odt (
Simon Phipps wrote:
On 23 Jun 2011, at 23:32, Marc Paré wrote:
I think it was mentioned that there were at one point over 100
million LibreOffice/OOo users. If we were to develop our own
"LibreOffice Reader" we would already have 100 million potential
users for our product. Not only that, the
@Mark& others
I like the idea, don't get me wrong. But sadly it is hard for developers out
there to make just a viewer when some other folks have that :( already. It
would be nice if more people, sed -i 's|people|users|g' out there would use the
OpenDocument format (*.odt) and not pdf to sh
On 2011-06-24, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Marc Paré wrote:
>> if we were to promote a "quick and dirty"
>> "LibreOffice Reader", very much like the "Adobe Acrobat Reader", whose
>> sole purpose is to provide the ability to "read" ".odt" files, there
>> would be no need to carry .pdf formatted fil
--- On Thu, 6/23/11, Marc Paré wrote:
> From: Marc Paré
> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF
> Reader"
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 3:32 PM
> Hi Antonio
>
> L
Simon Phipps wrote:
On 23 Jun 2011, at 23:32, Marc Paré wrote:
I think it was mentioned that there were at one point over 100 million LibreOffice/OOo
users. If we were to develop our own "LibreOffice Reader" we would already have
100 million potential users for our product. Not only that,
Marc Paré wrote:
> This thread is really about proposing, to the devs, the possibility of
> creating a "LibreOffice Reader" similar to the "Adobe .pdf Reader".
This could be an idea to investigate, but I don't know how feasible it
is; actually there is (or used to be) a "read only" mode in
OpenOf
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 17:40 -0400, Marc Paré wrote:
> OK, this is just a teaser to entice people into a discussion of the
> following proposal.
>
> There is talk on the documentation list of the formats made available to
> users of our documents (manuals, reference books, etc). These for now
>
On 23 Jun 2011, at 23:32, Marc Paré wrote:
>
>
> I think it was mentioned that there were at one point over 100 million
> LibreOffice/OOo users. If we were to develop our own "LibreOffice Reader" we
> would already have 100 million potential users for our product. Not only
> that, the LibreO
Hi Antonio
Le 2011-06-23 18:05, Antonio Olivares a écrit :
Marc,
Idea sounds good, but there is also another competitor out there to the famous
PDF :
http://djvu.sourceforge.net/
How about adding editing/viewing djvu compatibility to LibreOffice too?
I for one (except under windows) use ev
--- On Thu, 6/23/11, Marc Paré wrote:
> From: Marc Paré
> Subject: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF
> Reader"
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 2:40 PM
> OK, this is just a teaser to en
OK, this is just a teaser to entice people into a discussion of the
following proposal.
There is talk on the documentation list of the formats made available to
users of our documents (manuals, reference books, etc). These for now
are in .odt (ODF) and .pdf (Adobe) and possibly .html (being di
59 matches
Mail list logo