View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0012471 | Scribus | Import / Export | public | 2014-07-03 20:00 | 2014-07-24 05:00 |
| Reporter | JLuc | Assigned To | jghali | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried |
| Status | closed | Resolution | duplicate | ||
| Product Version | 1.5.0svn | ||||
| Summary | 0012471: Scribus should warn when it cant import a SVG truthfully | ||||
| Description | Since scribus doesnt understand filters in SVG, it should warn when a SVG is incorrectly imported. Go on importing as is now is OK as long as the user is warned. (It could also possibly explain which ar the not-understood filters or create a log file.) | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Patch | |||||
|
|
To avoid popups it could be a warning sign - somehow stored in the imported objects, i dont know how - as the one that appear for low resolution images But (jghali) : amof there is such a warning but its hiden because in current state that warning would be displayed allmost all the time. |
|
|
Perhaps there should be a note in the import dialog that explains or offers a place for people to link to learn more about the details? EDIT: Lets create a wiki page with the details of the problem. |
|
|
since the previous approach (always warn when there could have been a difference) did not work (it was always shown), we could try do it the other way round: warning when specific unsupported features are found. in this case a popup is fine to me. |
|
|
ale, agreed. Should we also propose this to become an additional Preflight Verifier check ? |
|
|
no, the preflight verifier cannot see missing shapes from SVGs... since they have not been imported :-) |
|
|
ps.: but we could have a dialog similar to the preflight verifier that shows problems happing while you're working on the document... |
|
|
Valdimir brought this up in 0005941:0026807 |
|
|
I dont know why this report has the "commentaire" status but it think it can be considered as a duplicate of 0005941 |
|
|
It's indeed a duplicate. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-07-03 20:00 | JLuc | New Issue | |
| 2014-07-03 20:29 | JLuc | Note Added: 0032458 | |
| 2014-07-04 03:09 | Kunda | Note Added: 0032460 | |
| 2014-07-04 03:09 | Kunda | Note Edited: 0032460 | |
| 2014-07-04 06:09 | ale | Note Added: 0032469 | |
| 2014-07-04 12:47 | Kunda | Note Added: 0032471 | |
| 2014-07-04 12:47 | Kunda | Status | new => feedback |
| 2014-07-22 00:52 | Kunda | Relationship added | related to 0005941 |
| 2014-07-22 07:14 | ale | Note Added: 0032911 | |
| 2014-07-22 07:15 | ale | Note Added: 0032912 | |
| 2014-07-22 11:36 | Kunda | Note Added: 0032916 | |
| 2014-07-22 17:06 | JLuc | Note Added: 0032918 | |
| 2014-07-22 17:06 | JLuc | Status | feedback => new |
| 2014-07-22 21:05 | jghali | Note Added: 0032923 | |
| 2014-07-22 21:05 | jghali | Relationship replaced | duplicate of 0005941 |
| 2014-07-22 21:05 | jghali | Status | new => resolved |
| 2014-07-22 21:05 | jghali | Resolution | open => duplicate |
| 2014-07-22 21:05 | jghali | Assigned To | => jghali |
| 2014-07-22 21:05 | jghali | Status | resolved => closed |
| 2014-07-24 05:00 | Kunda | Relationship added | related to 0010841 |
