Document url?

On 28/08/12 10:30, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=305915
>
> Albert Astals Cid <aacid@kde.org> changed:
>
>             What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                   CC|                            |aacid@kde.org
>             Severity|major                       |normal
>
> --- Comment #1 from Albert Astals Cid <aacid@kde.org> ---
> Document url?
>

I am getting the originator to create a minimal example as the original 
is a restructed internal document.

///Peter

On 28/08/12 10:30, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=305915
>
> Albert Astals Cid <aacid@kde.org> changed:
>
>             What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                   CC|                            |aacid@kde.org
>             Severity|major                       |normal
>
> --- Comment #1 from Albert Astals Cid <aacid@kde.org> ---
> Document url?

OK, cleared.

http://oimelc.ucc.ie/ConsultancyDeclaration_distributed.pdf

///Peter

Created attachment 73523 [details]
The said pdf

On 28/08/12 13:16, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=305915
>
> --- Comment #4 from Albert Astals Cid <aacid@kde.org> ---
> Created attachment 73523 [details]
>    --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=73523&action=edit
> The said pdf

Thanks.

Weird: "Attachment is not viewable in your browser because its MIME type 
(application/octet-stream) is not one that your browser is able to display."

oimelc.ucc.ie is stock Apache2 on stock Ubuntu 12.04. Why it believes a 
PDF document is application/octet-stream and not application/pdf is 
beyond me, sorry.

///Peter

It is just the same pdf you linked but attached to the bug so it does not get lost.

Interesting, the submit button is not *in* the page but on the chrome of the Adobe Reader application, someone has to investigate which part of the the spec talks about it and see how to implement it

On 28/08/12 23:10, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=305915
>
> Albert Astals Cid <aacid@kde.org> changed:
>
>             What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>               Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
>       Ever confirmed|0                           |1
>
> --- Comment #7 from Albert Astals Cid <aacid@kde.org> ---
> Interesting, the submit button is not *in* the page but on the chrome of the
> Adobe Reader application, someone has to investigate which part of the the spec
> talks about it and see how to implement it

So it appears; the creator simply told me he had "added a Submit button" 
in whatever application he used to create the doc.

In my ignorance I had assumed the the Show/Hide Forms button (which 
appears in the chrome of Okular) would also implement the Submit button.

Thanks for looking at this.

///Peter

Looking at the spec for PDF 1.7 (http://www.adobe.com/devnet/acrobat/pdfs/pdf_reference_1-7.pdf), I guess what we need is at page 703. I'll try to have a look at it.

Hmmm. having a look at the pdf file itself it seems its part of the rdf metadata

      <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
            xmlns:adhocwf="http://ns.adobe.com/AcrobatAdhocWorkflow/1.0/">
         <adhocwf:version>1.1</adhocwf:version>
         <adhocwf:allowAnonymous>false</adhocwf:allowAnonymous>
         <adhocwf:dataSetLocId>EF7192D60A3F084985EB9182CC1364EEdataSetLocId</adhocwf:dataSetLocId>
         <adhocwf:dataSetName>ConsultancyDeclaration_responses.pdf</adhocwf:dataSetName>
         <adhocwf:distributionMethod>3</adhocwf:distributionMethod>
         <adhocwf:initiator>b.osullivan@ucc.ie</adhocwf:initiator>
         <adhocwf:state>3</adhocwf:state>
         <adhocwf:submitButtonInfo>AUTO;SubmitButton1</adhocwf:submitButtonInfo>
         <adhocwf:workflowId>a5e1e443ef69734ea745190c720ac8db</adhocwf:workflowId>
         <adhocwf:workflowType>0</adhocwf:workflowType>
      </rdf:Description>

and not what you suggest

Still in Okular 1.1.3.

Since most PDF form features are broken since 5 years, does it mean there is nobody in the Okular team who could have a look? If so Maybe the PDF form features should be disabled for the next release because Okular promises a feature that it basically doesn't have.

(In reply to Uwe Stöhr from comment #11)
> Still in Okular 1.1.3.
> 
> Since most PDF form features are broken since 5 years, does it mean there is
> nobody in the Okular team who could have a look? If so Maybe the PDF form
> features should be disabled for the next release because Okular promises a
> feature that it basically doesn't have.

Or maybe you should actually try to contribute something instead of attacking people that give you things for free.

(In reply to Albert Astals Cid from comment #12)

> Or maybe you should actually try to contribute something instead of
> attacking people that give you things for free.

I did not attack anybody. I am also an OpenSource developer (www.lyx.org). This doesn't matter because I think it is a fair opinion to say better don't promote a feature if it is not fully working.

I am new to Linux and I'm trying out how I can do my work with programs on this OS. PDF forms are nothing special because for everything in the administration in my town I have to fill forms. I googled around and Okular was promoted having PDF form support. After an hour of testing I had to give up because I could not fill and submit real life documents from the administration. It is not that Okular misses a particular feature but the basic ones. Therefore I think either offer full PDF form support and if this is not possible either disable support for forms or warn the users telling him what is missing.

(In reply to Uwe Stöhr from comment #13)
> (In reply to Albert Astals Cid from comment #12)
> 
> > Or maybe you should actually try to contribute something instead of
> > attacking people that give you things for free.
> 
> I did not attack anybody. I am also an OpenSource developer (www.lyx.org).
> This doesn't matter because I think it is a fair opinion to say better don't
> promote a feature if it is not fully working.
> 
> I am new to Linux and I'm trying out how I can do my work with programs on
> this OS. PDF forms are nothing special because for everything in the
> administration in my town I have to fill forms. I googled around and Okular
> was promoted having PDF form support. After an hour of testing I had to give
> up because I could not fill and submit real life documents from the
> administration. It is not that Okular misses a particular feature but the
> basic ones. Therefore I think either offer full PDF form support and if this
> is not possible either disable support for forms or warn the users telling
> him what is missing.

Let me make sure i understand you, since the feature is not useful for you, you think it should be disabled for everyone?

> Let me make sure i understand you, since the feature is not useful for you, you think it should be disabled for everyone?

You misunderstood me. Maybe an example of my experience as a developer: For LyX under Windows we implemented support to use EMF and WMF images in LaTeX documents. It worked for my testcases and files I used. But it did not work for many users. So in fact I had to disable the support. I was not happy but it was the right decision because too many users were disappointed because we said it could handle such files but in real life too many images failed. (Meanwhile we found the solution to let Inkscape do the conversion and now it works properly and I could re-enable support for these image types.)

I proposed the harsh way concerning PDF forms because it is not that there is a particular bug but the basic features of PDF forms are missing. I mean what helps me to fill out a form if I cannot submit the FDF file to the administration? Moreover, many, many PDF forms have radiobuttons to choose e.g. the sex, but this very basic feature is also not working, see bug https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=382857

So please don't be upset, I never stated that Okular is not a good program at all. it displays even very large PDFs flawlessly. It is only about PDF forms thta don't work for many real life applications. Evince has by the way the same problems and I reported these bugs there too.

For what it's worth,  too have yet to encounter a PDF with forms that I could actually fill out with Okular. :( We might want to mark the feature in the UI as experimental or "use at your own risk" or something. I have to agree with Uwe that it may be better to disable or at least warn about a half-working feature than let people try it, get frustrated with bugs that make it very broken. They often get angry and want to flame the developers, which is very depressing and saps people's motivation to actually fix the issues.

And also Uwe, I do not in any way mean to suggest that you are flaming Albert. You are being really patient and professional here, and for that we are appreciative!

The Submit Form button is showing for me in Okular 21.03.70.

Can you please test and confirm if this issue is still occurring or if this bug report can be marked as resolved. I've set the bug status to "needsinfo" pending your response, please change back to "reported" or "resolved" when you respond, thanks.

Dear Bug Submitter,

This bug has been in NEEDSINFO status with no change for at least
15 days. Please provide the requested information as soon as
possible and set the bug status as REPORTED. Due to regular bug
tracker maintenance, if the bug is still in NEEDSINFO status with
no change in 30 days the bug will be closed as RESOLVED > WORKSFORME
due to lack of needed information.

For more information about our bug triaging procedures please read the
wiki located here:
https://community.kde.org/Guidelines_and_HOWTOs/Bug_triaging

If you have already provided the requested information, please
mark the bug as REPORTED so that the KDE team knows that the bug is
ready to be confirmed.

Thank you for helping us make KDE software even better for everyone!

My error. After Comment 8 I consider this sufficiently explained, and after this amount of time, the matter is probably obsolete.