Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Full Text Issue Listing
|Summary:||Microsoft Office Compatibility Issue tracking|
|Status:||CLOSED IRREPRODUCIBLE||QA Contact:||issues@qa <issues>|
|Priority:||P3||CC:||frank.schoenheit, issues, jens-uwe, t8m|
|Version:||OOo 1.1 RC5|
|Issue Type:||DEFECT||Latest Confirmation in:||---|
Description utomo99 2003-10-28 03:49:57 UTC
Microsoft Office Compatibility Issue tracking
Comment 1 utomo99 2003-10-28 03:54:04 UTC
I will add other later
Comment 2 utomo99 2003-10-28 04:00:27 UTC
update with more new Issue
Comment 3 utomo99 2003-10-28 04:56:03 UTC
Update again with Start Issue
Comment 4 dankegel 2003-10-28 06:19:04 UTC
Wow. That's quite a list. Thanks, utomo! Shouldn't we set the target milestone to 2.0 on this tracking bug, since it's more or less the list of MS interoperability problems we want to see fixed in OOo 2.0?
Comment 5 Frank Schönheit 2003-10-28 07:16:19 UTC
what's the advantage of such a bug over a query for the "ms_interop" keyword? Besides this: Looking at the dependency tree I see *a lot* of issues which definately are *not* ms_interop (I don't even start to name them here, there are too much of them). I spent half an hour to remove only the wrong dependencies to issues which I'm involved with ... :(
Comment 6 utomo99 2003-10-28 08:08:01 UTC
the advantage of such a bug over a query for the "ms_interop" keyword is: if we can reduce it til minimum, MS Office user will be able to move to OOo/SO with minimum problem. as long as this issue still many, many MS Office user will facing problem when they move from MSO to OOo. If they have big problem, maybe they will not continue it. or if they propose the OOo/SO migration to their company/organization/school, ETC. and they got a lot of this kind of problem they will not be able to promote OOo/SO anymore, even when the OOo/SO is better compatibility. and this can meke bad image. but if this kind of Issue is minimum, people will less facing problem for migrating to OOo/SO. Maybe some Issue is not correctly placed in this Issue, because I use dan kegels query for collecting this. and I hope other member will add/correct it too. Thanks for correcting it. about the target I dont know if we can set it to 2.0 or not, but I hope we can have it at 2.0.
Comment 7 pavel 2003-10-28 09:17:47 UTC
Please think before you write such statements: The advantage of having a query for ms_interop is that if we can reduce it til minimum, MS Office user will be able to move to OOo/SO with minimum problem. Got it? It is the same nonsense you wrote. On the ther hand, having ms_interop is a dynamic thing. You do not have to add it here manually, because it will be added automatically to the results of the query fro ms_interop if it is marked as such...
Comment 8 dankegel 2003-10-28 16:50:50 UTC
I can think of one reason to use a tracking bug in addition to the ms_interop keyword: some of the bugs that lack the ms_interop keyword nevertheless hinder proper display of MS Office files. For instance, issue 21393, which sure looks like it ought to be resolved, even though the engineer who looked at it removed the ms_interop keyword. That said, Utomo, there isn't much value in a tracking bug that just duplicates what you can get from a query. If you want people to use and like this tracking bug, you might need to figure out a way to make it uniquely useful, e.g. "bugs that aren't marked ms_interoperability but sure look like they should be to me".
Comment 9 Joost Andrae 2003-10-29 11:18:05 UTC
JA: changed owner of this issue back to submitter
Comment 10 utomo99 2003-11-21 10:47:25 UTC
Comment 11 utomo99 2004-05-27 11:45:15 UTC
Comment 12 utomo99 2004-05-27 11:55:03 UTC