Talk:Proposals for removing features

From The Document Foundation Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Writer/Web feature

Please don't remove the Writer/Web feature. I use web view and HTML source view/editing quite often and really like this feature. GerryT (talk)

What do you use it for specifically? I mean for what purpose? Why not use your browser and its developer tools? Or one of the open source WYSIWYG editors still in existence that are actually being improved unlike LibreOffice's Writer/Web? Beluga (talk) 2017-03-30T19:46:26 (UTC)
Thanks for your response and thanks for your question. The tight integration of Writer/Web in the office suite is its strength. I have all documents in Libreoffice (including all their layout and formatting, of course). It is very handy to move (parts of) documents over to Writer/Web, switch to HTML source code, edit/refine the source code, switch back to Writer/Web view to see how it looks, switch back to source code and copy the relevant part of the source code to use it further for websites or CMS. In my opinion, only the tight integration with the office suite allows to not lose formatting in this kind of workflow. Hence, I really oppose the removal of that feature. GerryT (talk) 2017-03-31T04:49:46 (UTC)

Bug reports + extensions

Some remarks: shouldn't these requests be created as bug reports as well? If something gets removed, wouldn't it be usefull to create an extension out of the removed funtionality? --Kerwyn (talk) 2017-04-14T17:31:25 (UTC)

Image maps

"Did anyone seen an image map on the web in the last 10 years or so?"
MAP is used for server-side image maps, so you cannot "see" it and you do not know, whether this feature is still used in local intranets. SIP was for client-side image maps and can be dropped. On export to html the image map is exported with the needed area tags.

But that is the only part, that can be dropped. The feature itself can be used without any web and is then still useful. Use cases: Navigation in Writer based on a picture e.g. in education; text documents which are associated to parts in a drawing in Draw and are shown on demand.

Currently the image map is the only way to put a hyperlink on an image in draw. A Writer-image can contain a hyperlink, but a Draw-image not.

Besides that, LibreOffice needs the ability to handle documents, which use this feature, because it belongs to ODF (10.4.13, part 1) and there is not even a demand for deprecating it in ODF 1.3. ODF would allow even more as currently implemented in LibreOffice, because a <draw:image-map> is possible for all graphic elements which have a <draw:frame>, e.g. a text-box or a group.

I vote against removing the image-map. Regina (talk) 2017-06-08T23:24:35 (UTC)


Maybe a removal should also result in creating an extension out of it for the very particular usecases where people really use a seemingly unneeded feature?--Kerwyn (talk) 2018-01-22T21:36:58 (UTC)

PostScript printing

Comment from Kurt Jaeger: I'm only a long-time libreoffice user, but rely on lpr printing instead of CUPS. Managing CUPS in desktop systems looks very complex compared to lpr.

Linux Foundation has been putting a lot of work in printing recently, check out the summer of code projects for 2017 and the ideas for this year. --Beluga (talk) 2018-03-11T10:15:37 (UTC)