Thanks and keep up the great work.

I think that’s fine, really. Mozilla shouldn’t apologize for hiring people to use their judgment and then having those people use their judgment. It should ideally be able to draw a line from that judgment back to the manifesto or whatever, and look back afterwards to evaluate how effective things were in moving the underlying mission forward.

However, if there’s an open, critical discussion to be had based on Mozilla governance principles, then everyone who is influencing the outcome should be representing themselves in the discussion and not trying to move the process through closed, high-pressure discussions. (I don’t know if those discussions happened around this issue, but they certainly happened around “module owner” issues when I was there, and given the political temperature of video stuff I can certainly imagine there being lots of influential people advocating very strongly without appearing in the thread.)

On the H.264 thing itself I don’t know what I think. Mozilla has been a stronger supporter of WebM than Google, and it’s not a fight Mozilla can win on its own in the timescale people are willing to operate in. It may not end up being a big deal (except for people on Windows XP or Linux?), but something about “to interoperate with Firefox, you need to fund the MPEG-LA” still unsettles me. Or it may end up being a big deal by letting B2G shift the mobile landscape to a Firefox-esque degree, and be a worthwhile sacrifice that nobody regrets in a couple of years. I’d be happier with it if there was some credible HEVC competitor emerging in the open, but I haven’t seen VP8 become the “platform for codec innovation” that Google wanted, and winning this round so convincingly isn’t likely to make HEVC’s developers wary of patent encumbrance.

If it was easy, everyone would do it. :-)

Thanks for this awesome tool!
But in my tests I have found an issue…
When is used a pdf created in Open Office, the viewer shows a corrupted text while a pdf created with MS Office works fine. I used the same font type in both files (Time News Roman).
I noticed that the Font objects created for each file are different: the encoding for alphabet(a-z A-Z) is missing in the OpenOffice file.
I’m posting links for test replication:
- http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26617411/object_Font_in_MS_Office.docx
- http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26617411/object_Font_in_OpenOffice.docx
- http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26617411/MSoffice_pdf.pdf
- http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26617411/OpenOffice_pdf.pdf
- http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26617411/error_image.PNG

PS.: forgive my poor English…

http://www.webodf.org/