Re: LanguageTool - place link on AOO site

[FR web forum]

In the french area, we have a link on the main page for:
"the best extensions to enhance AOO"
This link jumps to the community forum and a dedicated section:
https://forum.openoffice.org/fr/forum/forum18.html




- Mail original -
De: "Rory O'Farrell" 
À: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Envoyé: Lundi 29 Juin 2015 16:53:34
Objet: Re: LanguageTool - place link on AOO site

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 15:47:16 +0100
"Marco A.G.Pinto"  wrote:

> Hello!
> 
> Just wondering if you place a link to the grammar checker, LanguageTool, 
> somewhere in the area of the AOO downloads:
> https://languagetool.org
> 
> I am involved on the Portuguese rules for it.
> 
> LanguageTool is an important add-on for AOO since it supports over 20 
> languages and it suggests grammar corrections, which is something 
> missing in AOO but which MS Office has by default.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Kind regards,
>   >Marco A.G.Pinto
> --
> 
> -- 

There is  already a link from the Extensions repository, at
http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/languagetool

Perhaps this should be linked also to the sadebar on  the download page?

-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

review canceled: [Issue 107734] Support for Math Input Panel in Windows 7 : [Attachment 84808] not yet ready, but can be tested

[bugzilla]

Regina Henschel  has canceled Regina Henschel
's request for review:
Issue 107734: Support for Math Input Panel in Windows 7
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=107734

Attachment 84808: not yet ready, but can be tested
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=84808&action=edit

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

July board report.

[jan i]

Hi.

It is again time to make a board report, you can find my proposal at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+July

comments and changes are welcome.

disclaimer: if you make changes directly in the report, the wording might be
changed.

I intent to submit the report with changes sunday 5th july.

rgds
jan i.

Re: July board report.

[Simon Phipps]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:51 PM, jan i  wrote:

> Hi.
>
> It is again time to make a board report, you can find my proposal at
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+July
>
> comments and changes are welcome.
>

Should the fact CVE-2015-1774 is still unresolved in the released version
be mentioned?

Best regards

Simon

Re: July board report.

[jan i]

On 30 June 2015 at 13:54, Simon Phipps  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:51 PM, jan i  wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > It is again time to make a board report, you can find my proposal at
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+July
> >
> > comments and changes are welcome.
> >
>
> Should the fact CVE-2015-1774 is still unresolved in the released version
> be mentioned?
>
It is kind of obvious, no new release so of course it is still unresolved.

However we have provided a work around description, which seems to be
sufficient.

rgds
jan i.


>
> Best regards
>
> Simon
>

Re: July board report.

[Simon Phipps]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:38 PM, jan i  wrote:

> On 30 June 2015 at 13:54, Simon Phipps  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:51 PM, jan i  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > It is again time to make a board report, you can find my proposal at
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+July
> > >
> > > comments and changes are welcome.
> > >
> >
> > Should the fact CVE-2015-1774 is still unresolved in the released version
> > be mentioned?
> >
> It is kind of obvious, no new release so of course it is still unresolved.
>

The previous Board report was issued just before the CVE was made public,
and is thus not mentioned. Given it's been unresolved for four months, two
public, shouldn't it be mentioned this time?

Thanks,

Simon

Re: July board report.

[jan i]

On 30 June 2015 at 14:45, Simon Phipps  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:38 PM, jan i  wrote:
>
> > On 30 June 2015 at 13:54, Simon Phipps  wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:51 PM, jan i  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > It is again time to make a board report, you can find my proposal at
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+July
> > > >
> > > > comments and changes are welcome.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Should the fact CVE-2015-1774 is still unresolved in the released
> version
> > > be mentioned?
> > >
> > It is kind of obvious, no new release so of course it is still
> unresolved.
> >
>
> The previous Board report was issued just before the CVE was made public,
> and is thus not mentioned. Given it's been unresolved for four months, two
> public, shouldn't it be mentioned this time?
>

Allow me to correct your statement, it is not unresolved. We discussed it
on this
list and a workaround has been provided. That is the important part, had we
not issued a workaround (and please do remember the theoretical nature of
the problem), then it would have been escalated through other channels.

But apart from that it is not custom to mention CVE in board reports,
independent
of their status.

I have nothing against mentioning it, if the community at large feels it is
needed,
even though it would be exceptional.

rgds
jan i.



>
> Thanks,
>
> Simon
>

StarWriter for DOS needed

[Jan Eric Hogh]

Hi,
 
I recently registered at the OO-forum and asked if someone could send me a 
download link for this really old piece of software (StarWriter for DOS, may 
also be called StarWriter compact 2.0 for DOS).
One of the moderators told me to email the developer list, because he is sure 
that someone there has an archive of old versions.
 
I have a bunch of really old documents created in this old version of 
StarWriter. I surely could open those in a more current version, but I'd love 
to have the old version for nostalgic reasons obviously ;-)
I bought the program back in the late 80ies, but someday the floppy disks 
weren't readable anymore, so i discarded them - many years ago. I know that it 
would be illegal if someone supplied a download link, but I also think there 
won't be any commercial loss if I would download it nevertheless since I paid 
for it many years ago.
 
Alternatively, I would also like to buy the software one more time for a 
reasonable price, if someone still owns a set of original and fully functional 
floppy disks :-)
 
Any help would be highly appreciated.
 
Thank you in advance,
Jan

Re: July board report.

[Marcus]

Am 06/30/2015 01:51 PM, schrieb jan i:

It is again time to make a board report, you can find my proposal at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+July

comments and changes are welcome.


just a spontaneous suggestion for the moment:

Release 4.1.2:
I would move the "we have a release manager" part down to the release 
section as IMHO it belongs there.


Marcus

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [Q] Question about Mailarchive

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

As mentioned separately, the email addresses of contributors to the Bugzilla 
are visible to anyone having an account, and that satisfies the ASF 
requirements for transparency.

Although the HTML files obscure the email addresses, they can still be 
harvested from the raw HTML, and the CC: lists are not obscured at all (and are 
visible to non-subscribers).

Although email addresses are not strong identifiers of individuals, association 
of email addresses with contributors works well enough for Apache purposes, in 
practice.

This may be useful .

 - Dennis 

-Original Message-
From: Mathias Röllig [mailto:mroellig.n...@gmx.net] 
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 05:18
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Q] Question about Mailarchive

Hello!

>> A special case is bugzilla. Bugzilla not intends to be a mailing list. It
>> seems it is a closed forum which shows sender addresses only for people who
>> are logged in. Bugzilla posts will be streamed into a mailing list - and
>> there is the problem.
>>
> We do it with bugzilla and also with subversion.
>
> I actually do not see the problem, bugzilla/subversion are as such is also
> public, and anybody can go in and read the content, even without a user.

I do not talk about the content - only about the email addresses. And 
these are not public in bugzilla.

Regards Mathias

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: July board report [and CVE-2015-1774].

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

THE TL;DR:

I agree.  The extensive lag to availability of 4.1.2 is far more pertinent at 
the level of the Board Report.  The existence of CVE-2015-1774 does not change 
that and should not overshadow it.

I think featuring CVE-2015-1774 in the report exaggerates its importance and 
ignores the deliberation that accompanied our announcement of a straightforward 
CVE-2015-1774 mitigation, 
.

 - Dennis

MORE MUSINGS

We are not talking about a defect for which there is a known exploit and there 
would be very few users, if any, who might encounter one, were one worth 
developing.  

While Simon has expressed his own perspective on how dangerous the related 
defect is and what users are exposed to, that is not the consensus of the AOO 
security team and those who have oversight on its deliberations.  That does not 
mean we shouldn't take further steps.  It just means we have concluded there is 
no emergency.
 
It would probably be a simpler and more-fruitful action to simply make this web 
page, , the bulletins, and their 
translations more prominent and easily found on our web site.

Also, with respect to CVE-2015-1774, I think the population of concern is those 
who use old (ca. 1999 and earlier) Korean-language HWP documents and are 
happily using OO.o 2.4 through 3.4 releases, remaining ignorant of AOO 4.1.2 
and already-repaired LibreOffice distributions.  

We can do what we are able to do, when we do it, yet there is little to be done 
for folks who have no desire or even means to replace their OpenOffice software.


-Original Message-
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 06:20
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: July board report.

On 30 June 2015 at 14:45, Simon Phipps  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:38 PM, jan i  wrote:
>
> > On 30 June 2015 at 13:54, Simon Phipps  wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:51 PM, jan i  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > It is again time to make a board report, you can find my proposal at
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+July
> > > >
> > > > comments and changes are welcome.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Should the fact CVE-2015-1774 is still unresolved in the released
> version
> > > be mentioned?
> > >
> > It is kind of obvious, no new release so of course it is still
> unresolved.
> >
>
> The previous Board report was issued just before the CVE was made public,
> and is thus not mentioned. Given it's been unresolved for four months, two
> public, shouldn't it be mentioned this time?
>

Allow me to correct your statement, it is not unresolved. We discussed it
on this
list and a workaround has been provided. That is the important part, had we
not issued a workaround (and please do remember the theoretical nature of
the problem), then it would have been escalated through other channels.

But apart from that it is not custom to mention CVE in board reports,
independent
of their status.

I have nothing against mentioning it, if the community at large feels it is
needed,
even though it would be exceptional.

rgds
jan i.



>
> Thanks,
>
> Simon
>


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: CVE-2015-1774 (was: July board report)

[Simon Phipps]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:

> THE TL;DR:
>
> I agree.  The extensive lag to availability of 4.1.2 is far more pertinent
> at the level of the Board Report.  The existence of CVE-2015-1774 does not
> change that and should not overshadow it.
>
> I think featuring CVE-2015-1774 in the report exaggerates its importance
> and ignores the deliberation that accompanied our announcement of a
> straightforward CVE-2015-1774 mitigation, <
> http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2015-1774.html>.
>
>
I would largely agree, although I still believe the CVE and its mitigation
should be documented at http://www.openoffice.org/download/ as there is a
negligible chance any user downloading AOO will see it otherwise and I
believe the risk is greater than is being recognised.



> MORE MUSINGS
>
> We are not talking about a defect for which there is a known exploit and
> there would be very few users, if any, who might encounter one, were one
> worth developing.
>
> While Simon has expressed his own perspective on how dangerous the related
> defect is and what users are exposed to, that is not the consensus of the
> AOO security team and those who have oversight on its deliberations.  That
> does not mean we shouldn't take further steps.  It just means we have
> concluded there is no emergency.



> It would probably be a simpler and more-fruitful action to simply make
> this web page, , the bulletins, and
> their translations more prominent and easily found on our web site.
>
> Also, with respect to CVE-2015-1774, I think the population of concern is
> those who use old (ca. 1999 and earlier) Korean-language HWP documents and
> are happily using OO.o 2.4 through 3.4 releases, remaining ignorant of AOO
> 4.1.2 and already-repaired LibreOffice distributions.
>

If a malicious party were to create an HWP file crafted to exploit the
vulnerability but then distribute it with another extension (say .ODT), AOO
would still open it. I thus believe that there are two populations of
concern:

   1. Users of HWP files on any existing version of AOO and predecessors.
   This is alleged to be a small population, and I have no reason to disagree.
   Were this the only population of concern I would agree that the risk would
   be minimal.
   2. All users of any distributed version of AOO and predecessors where
   the documented mitigation has not been applied are also vulnerable to the
   creation of a malicious HWP renamed with a benign file extension. There is
   no known exploit at present, but as the population of users with the
   vulnerability grows the risk increases.

We can do what we are able to do, when we do it, yet there is little to be
> done for folks who have no desire or even means to replace their OpenOffice
> software.
>

I agree that we can only do what we have the resources to do. However, I
continue to believe we are not taking all the steps we could to ensure that
the second population of concern are adequately informed even if we do not
have the resources to protect them.

S.

Re: CVE-2015-1774 (was: July board report)

[Kay Schenk]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Simon Phipps  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
> dennis.hamil...@acm.org
> > wrote:
>
> > THE TL;DR:
> >
> > I agree.  The extensive lag to availability of 4.1.2 is far more
> pertinent
> > at the level of the Board Report.  The existence of CVE-2015-1774 does
> not
> > change that and should not overshadow it.
> >
> > I think featuring CVE-2015-1774 in the report exaggerates its importance
> > and ignores the deliberation that accompanied our announcement of a
> > straightforward CVE-2015-1774 mitigation, <
> > http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2015-1774.html>.
> >
> >
> I would largely agree, although I still believe the CVE and its mitigation
> should be documented at http://www.openoffice.org/download/ as there is a
> negligible chance any user downloading AOO will see it otherwise and I
> believe the risk is greater than is being recognised.
>

A reasonable suggestion I think.  As it's been pointed out, there is little
impact on the great majority of our users, but, additional information for
new downloads is a good idea.


>
>
> > MORE MUSINGS
> >
> > We are not talking about a defect for which there is a known exploit and
> > there would be very few users, if any, who might encounter one, were one
> > worth developing.
> >
> > While Simon has expressed his own perspective on how dangerous the
> related
> > defect is and what users are exposed to, that is not the consensus of the
> > AOO security team and those who have oversight on its deliberations.
> That
> > does not mean we shouldn't take further steps.  It just means we have
> > concluded there is no emergency.
>
>
>
> > It would probably be a simpler and more-fruitful action to simply make
> > this web page, , the bulletins, and
> > their translations more prominent and easily found on our web site.
> >
> > Also, with respect to CVE-2015-1774, I think the population of concern is
> > those who use old (ca. 1999 and earlier) Korean-language HWP documents
> and
> > are happily using OO.o 2.4 through 3.4 releases, remaining ignorant of
> AOO
> > 4.1.2 and already-repaired LibreOffice distributions.
> >
>
> If a malicious party were to create an HWP file crafted to exploit the
> vulnerability but then distribute it with another extension (say .ODT), AOO
> would still open it. I thus believe that there are two populations of
> concern:
>
>1. Users of HWP files on any existing version of AOO and predecessors.
>This is alleged to be a small population, and I have no reason to
> disagree.
>Were this the only population of concern I would agree that the risk
> would
>be minimal.
>2. All users of any distributed version of AOO and predecessors where
>the documented mitigation has not been applied are also vulnerable to
> the
>creation of a malicious HWP renamed with a benign file extension. There
> is
>no known exploit at present, but as the population of users with the
>vulnerability grows the risk increases.
>
> We can do what we are able to do, when we do it, yet there is little to be
> > done for folks who have no desire or even means to replace their
> OpenOffice
> > software.
> >
>
> I agree that we can only do what we have the resources to do. However, I
> continue to believe we are not taking all the steps we could to ensure that
> the second population of concern are adequately informed even if we do not
> have the resources to protect them.
>
> S.
>



-- 
-
MzK

"We can all sleep easy at night knowing that
 somewhere at any given time,
 the Foo Fighters are out there fighting Foo."
 -- David Letterman

macro equivalent of VBA Range()

[Mark Polczynski]

I am an absolute beginner to OpenOffice macros, but have some knowledge of
VBA.  What is the OpenOffce macro equivalent of the VBA statement:

x = Range("Y")

Also, what is the equivalent of:

x = Cells(1,1)

Thanks!

Mark Polczynski

Re: StarWriter for DOS needed

[Fernando Cassia]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Jan Eric Hogh  wrote:

> I recently registered at the OO-forum and asked if someone could send me a
> download link for this really old piece of software (StarWriter for DOS,
> may also be called StarWriter compact 2.0 for DOS).
> One of the moderators told me to email the developer list, because he is
> sure that someone there has an archive of old versions.
>

The founder of Stardivision Gmbh,Marco Boerries is on Twitter, and very
approacheable.
@t3killer 

https://twitter.com/t3killer

I suggest you contact him. I´m sure he could donate a copy of that
abandoned software to The Internet Archive (Archive.org), for historical
reasons...
FC


-- 
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary
act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto
Revolucionario
- George Orwell

Re: July board report.

[jan i]

On 30 June 2015 at 17:44, Marcus  wrote:

> Am 06/30/2015 01:51 PM, schrieb jan i:
>
>> It is again time to make a board report, you can find my proposal at
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+July
>>
>> comments and changes are welcome.
>>
>
> just a spontaneous suggestion for the moment:
>
> Release 4.1.2:
> I would move the "we have a release manager" part down to the release
> section as IMHO it belongs there.
>
good catch, will do that.

rgds
jan i.


>
> Marcus
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

[EXT] Dialog doesn't show up for Filter Extension

[Mani N C]

Hi,

I am writing a C++ filter extension for DOCX file format. I need to get
some information from user before opening the document, After that default
DOCX filter will be used.
I was able to create a filter which can open DOCX files. Also created XDL
file using Basic Dialog editor.
Now when I try to use this XDL file, I don't see any dialog opening up.

I tried to follow the directions in
http://openoffice.2283327.n4.nabble.com/help-with-dialog-boxes-td3026585.html
But I couldn't get it working yet.

sal_Int16 SAL_CALL SimpleDialog::execute() throw ( RuntimeException )
{
Reference< XDialogProvider > xDialogProvider(
mxServiceFactory->createInstanceWithContext(
C2U("com.sun.star.awt.DialogProvider2"), mxContext), UNO_QUERY_THROW );

OUString sXDLPath = getFilterInstallPath();
sXDLPath += C2U("xdl/SimpleDialog.xdl");

mxDialog = Reference< XDialog>
(xDialogProvider->createDialog(sXDLPath), UNO_QUERY_THROW);
Reference< XControl > xControl(mxDialog, UNO_QUERY_THROW);

short nRet = mxDialog->execute();
return mRet;
}


I get a valid xdl file path in sXDLPath, File path starts with "file://"
instead of "vnd.sun.star.extension://" Is this OK ?
Is there any mistake in the code snippet above?

Because, If I create dialog programatically, it works fine. Problem happens
only when I use XDL file.

Thanks in advance!

-- 
Mani Chandrasekar

ApacheCon (ACEU) submissions due today

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 24/06/2015 Rony G. Flatscher (Apache) wrote:

hmm, just submitted a proposal yesterday evening


Deadline is tonight European time. I will submit a talk about the 
OpenOffice/ODF "ecosystem". It will be enough to get one or two more 
talks to build an OpenOffice track, so (as Jan already suggested 
multiple times) if you plan to attend make sure you submit a talk 
proposal and we can then coordinate and avoid overlapping.


Useful links at https://wiki.apache.org/apachecon/FrontPage and remember 
to submit for Apache Conference Europe 2015 (not US!) and for ApacheCon 
Core (not the "Big Data" event).


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: macro equivalent of VBA Range()

[FR web forum]

For this kind of question, the best way is to go on the community forum:
https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewforum.php?f=20

- Mail original -
De: "Mark Polczynski" 
À: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Envoyé: Mardi 30 Juin 2015 20:54:43
Objet: macro equivalent of VBA Range()

I am an absolute beginner to OpenOffice macros, but have some knowledge of
VBA.  What is the OpenOffce macro equivalent of the VBA statement:

x = Range("Y")

Also, what is the equivalent of:

x = Cells(1,1)

Thanks!

Mark Polczynski

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org