On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 23:57 +0200, Knut Olav Bøhmer wrote: > 2011/9/5 Caolán McNamara <caol...@redhat.com>: > > On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 00:29 +0200, Knut Olav Břhmer wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> This patch solves a serious problem experienced by many companies and > >> need to be included in libreoffice. > >> I'm using this patch with my own build for my customers with ooo 3.2.1 > >> > >> http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114485 > > > > Which patch exactly, my patch from #12 or #15 above or something > > additional ? > > I think I was using the "update patch to handle real-world documents". > But it was so long time ago that I compiled it so I don't remember. > Do you remember what you needed to improve to make it correct? Is > there any example where the patch would not work?
The reason I didn't go ahead with that patch IIRC, is because there appear to be *three* places where the hyperlink gets set, and the patch sets two of them, but not the two that really matter. i.e. there's the inline hyperlink in the field itself, there's some hyperlinks stored in the DocumentSummaryStream metadata, and then there's hyperlinks in the data stream associated with basically some FormField structure linked to the field. I think my patch set the DocumentSummaryStream one, but hacking documents manually showed that word used the FormField one if it exists over the metadata one, so I don't think the patch is quite right. Noel was playing with the fieldfield stuff IIRC, new parsers and the like, which might have some bearing on these, at least on getting the parser right to read the same hyperlink value as word reads. C. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
