Hi,
I am adding sheet-dimensions to the label-definitions (Labels.xcu) used in
label wizard and business card wizard.
Of the 1790 definitions, there are now only 199 to be checked. Unfortunately,
these can only be checked manually : (
Some labels on pinfeed sheets are discontinued, no longer
Hi Winfried,
On Fri, 2012-01-13 at 11:55 +0100, Winfried Donkers wrote:
I am adding sheet-dimensions to the label-definitions (Labels.xcu)
used in label wizard and business card wizard.
Lovely :-)
Of the 1790 definitions, there are now only 199 to be checked.
Unfortunately, these
On Fri, 2012-01-13 at 11:26 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
Another thing that interests me is that parsing the configuration,
despite all Stephan's good work in configmgr to speed it up, still takes
real time and space: say 4% of our startup and a chunk of RAM. If we
look at the sizes of
Another thing that interests me is that parsing the configuration,
despite all Stephan's good work in configmgr to speed it up, still takes
real time and space: say 4% of our startup and a chunk of RAM. If we
look at the sizes of our config using a simple:
As the contents of Labels.xcu
On 01/13/2012 12:26 PM, Michael Meeks wrote:
Another thing that interests me is that parsing the configuration,
despite all Stephan's good work in configmgr to speed it up, still takes
real time and space: say 4% of our startup and a chunk of RAM. If we
look at the sizes of our config
On 01/13/2012 01:56 PM, Winfried Donkers wrote:
As the contents of Labels.xcu are only used when starting the label
wizard or business card wizard, woul dit be better if this file is
read when starting the wizard, and not when starting LibreOffice?
Can't this file be included in the installation
On 01/13/2012 04:35 PM, Winfried Donkers wrote:
However, I would prefer improving configmgr (if need be) over switching
the label data to yet another format.
What format are you thinking of? As I am doing a lot of rework on the file (the
diff file is 1.2MB),
it may the the right moment to
What do you mean with The current format does not look efficient to
me. Efficient in terms of what?
Just that the file size caused by the xml-tags exceeds the file size
caused by the data itself. I have nothing against xml and I am no expert.
For me there is no need to change it, it's purely
On Fri, 2012-01-13 at 17:06 +0100, Winfried Donkers wrote:
What do you mean with The current format does not look efficient to
me. Efficient in terms of what?
Just that the file size caused by the xml-tags exceeds the file size
caused by the data itself. I have nothing against xml and I
