incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jianyuan Li <lijianyuan1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Call-For-Review]Two shape geometry bugs
Date Tue, 11 Sep 2012 02:32:08 GMT
A new custom cube shape(just like my patch) can be defined in AOO for MS
cube shape. But the focus is whether it is valued or not.

2012/9/11 Jianyuan Li <lijianyuan1983@gmail.com>

> I think the geometry difference between AOO and MS can be taken as a
> feature gap. And the fill difference is the result of the feature gap when
> import/export.
>
>
> 2012/9/11 Regina Henschel <rb.henschel@t-online.de>
>
>> Hi Jianyuan,
>>
>> Jianyuan Li schrieb:
>>
>>  Hi, Regina,
>>> Thanks for the good catch. I agree with you. See my comments in bugzilla.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jianyuan
>>>
>>
>> It remains the problem, that the corresponding shape in PowerPoint has
>> different kind of filling than the shape in AOO.
>>
>> Perhaps it is possible to generate a new shape during import without
>> adding it to any toolbox? In that way the shape would look the same as in
>> MS Office documents. And such generic import would give other still missing
>> shapes too.
>>
>> AOO can handle arbitrary custom shapes in ODF format. They do not need to
>> be in the predefined collection. But I don't know, whether MS Office has
>> this ability too. Therefore a round trip might be problematic.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Regina
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2012/9/10 Regina Henschel <rb.henschel@t-online.de>
>>>
>>>  Jianyuan Li schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>   Hi, all,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have fixes for 2 shape geometry bugs. Can anyone help review? More
>>>>> details can be found in bugzilla comments. Thanks.
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/****show_bug.cgi?id=120848<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=120848>
>>>>> <https**://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_**bug.cgi?id=120848<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120848>
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/****show_bug.cgi?id=120870<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=120870>
>>>>> <https**://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_**bug.cgi?id=120870<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120870>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  I'm not sure about issue 120870. The current definition leads to three
>>>> separate fillings and to breaking up into three polygons. Is that
>>>> behavior
>>>> preserved?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards
>>>> Regina
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message