Issue 873 - The 'meta.xml' stream is empty in a .sxm math package
Summary: The 'meta.xml' stream is empty in a .sxm math package
Status: CLOSED NOT_AN_OOO_ISSUE
Alias: None
Product: Math
Classification: Application
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: 627
Hardware: PC Windows 2000
: P2 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: caolanm
QA Contact: issues@www
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2001-05-08 18:47 UTC by mtg
Modified: 2003-12-06 14:52 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description mtg 2001-05-08 18:47:08 UTC 
The meta information entered into the dialog reached by at File->Properties is 
not saved in the sxm package format. This is bad! Internal hamburg bug id is 
86702.
Comment 1 caolanm 2001-05-08 19:12:59 UTC 
Are you sure ?, in my 630c2 this information *is* being saved to the meta.xml
stream, its just not being restored on reloading to the property dialog. 

Examining writer as well, I see that the same thing is happening there. When I
unzip a package there is a correct meta.xml file, so this meta information is
being saved correctly to all package formats, but not being restored to the
correct dialogs on reloading. Either a core xmloff thingie, or a small UI issue
I'd bet. 

Is that problem this bug, or is there a different issue with an actual empty
meta.xml file being created for the math support ? Also in 629a3 these
properties do get restored back to the menus, stranger and stranger.
Comment 2 mtg 2001-05-08 19:21:21 UTC 
*cough* this is a duplicate of another internal bug (#86738) which says exactly 
the same thing for writer documents. This was a fault of the 630's version of 
the package DLL, which ironically is my fault and was fixed in a checkin today 
by me (will be in the 631b). Quite spectacular that I didn't make the 
connection. I blame flouride in the water. 

How do you handle this with CrapZilla? Set bug type to INVALID or 
STUPIDSUBMITTER and then re-assign it back to me ?
Comment 3 jogi 2001-05-09 07:50:47 UTC 
#86738 is much higher no than #86702 so is the #86702 bug doubled? Who is 
stupid here? <grin>
Comment 4 caolanm 2001-05-09 10:15:21 UTC 
Ordinarily I'd mark this as resolved "duplicate" of an issuezilla bug. but this
is a duplicate of an internal bug, so I'll call it invalid and laugh heartily at
the submitter.

For what its worth anyone can "steal" a bug from someone else without their
permission by reassigning any bug to yourself for modification.
Comment 5 caolanm 2001-05-09 10:17:33 UTC 
Get thee hence to the dark pit of exorcized buglets.