[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#337530: Acknowledgement (openoffice.org-calc: OOo issue#57320 -- incorrect import of date format)



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ron Johnson wrote:
>>      <table:table-cell office:value-type="date"
>> office:date-value="1948-11-12">
>>       <text:p>11/11/48</text:p>
>>      </table:table-cell>
>> 
>> office:date-value is correct, but text:p (which is what is
>> apparently displayed) is wrong.
>> 
>> Any thoughts?
> 
> Format Code MM/DD/YY
> 
> openoffice.org-calc 2.0.0-2 prints E3 as 11/12/48, with an
> "equation" value of 11/12/1948.

I have "manually" (i.e., via MC) unpacked all alienated OOo packages
originally from www.openoffice.org into /opt and after
symlinking /etc/openoffice.org-2.0 and some files in /usr/local/bin to
proper places in /opt/openoffice.org-2.0 directory tree, I've got an
upstream version of OOo 2.0 which seems to work on Debian (I wouldn't trust
anything to it, but I was able to start scalc -- they don't use oocalc name
- -- and import CSV file to it) and (hopefully) doesn't conflict with the
Debian build from unstable packages.

Import of CSV file went as smoothly as before and so I was able to save it
as ODF. When I inspected that file (and I didn't touch Format of any cell
in the spreadsheet) I found that their Calc really understood format of the
date well:

<table:table-cell office:value-type="date" office:date-value="1948-11-12">
      <text:p>11/12/48</text:p>
</table:table-cell>

Any possibility to make Debian build work in the same way (i.e., without
necessity to set date formats manually), please?

Thanks,

Matej Cepl

- -- 
Matej Cepl, http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/blog/
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB  25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
 
Roses are red;
    Violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic,
    And so am I.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDbQrW4J/vJdlkhKwRAqQiAJ9d7qpjZqeF7THkwf1JJlCrn+qHFgCgi2Qo
UjOcl5kOE0MXwwsAwNrPv+s=
=ysYs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: