Summary: | [UI] [EDITING] Add possibility to set a numbering level (over 1) for the Numbering Style specified for a Paragraph style | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | LibreOffice | Reporter: | Mirosław Zalewski <miniopl> |
Component: | Writer | Assignee: | Not Assigned <libreoffice-bugs> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | enhancement | CC: | adler, hlukas047, jcs.bugzilla, jmadero.dev, libcub, mathieutournier, rb.henschel, sasha.libreoffice, sdc.blanco |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 3.4.3 release | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
See Also: |
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83369 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=126887 |
||
Whiteboard: | |||
Crash report or crash signature: | Regression By: | ||
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 103370, 107642, 107833 | ||
Attachments: |
exmaple file with extra styles + outline numbering
document that demonstartes problem with numbering level |
Description
Mirosław Zalewski
2011-11-14 05:08:24 UTC
Created attachment 53553 [details]
exmaple file with extra styles + outline numbering
IMHO it can be done.
Pls look at the exameple attached
Cor Nouws: thanks for your reply. But point of this request is providing some other way, so tabs will not be necessary. In your example, you add special style to headings and then press tab once to make them second level of list. Unfortunately, this is unacceptable for templates. In documents based on templates you should be able to just apply some style to heading and it should default to certain level on list. Right now you have to manually adjust level, because it defaults to level one. Or did I not understand your example? I do much appreciate your help and suggestions. I have now created a bugzilla account so I can respond here. An alternative implementation would be to automatically set the Numbering Level to the Outline Level set in the style without needing an additional control on the form. I am still not clear why both levels are needed. The level could still be altered using the Tab/toolbar. I do know how to do it with a numbered list as in the example given by Cor, but as Mirosław Zalewski correctly said, I confirm that I really expected it to work without using the bullet toolbar using styles defined in my Template. LO is a great product on the whole. Cor's proposed solution (I have now looked at it) is still a work around that I already knew existed and have experimented with. It is also not a solution I want to present during my planned talk on LO styles and Templates on January 12 2012 (the date is not yet listed on www.gxcc.org.uk) I have even been tempted to download the LO source code and have a look for myself! If I had more time I would do so out of interest but I the majority of my coding has been for a 1970s Operating System written in Assembler (1970-76) and my C (I assume is is in C or C++) is rather rusty after nearly 20 years (although I have dabbled with C# recently) and I have also never used any web based source code repositories and would have a significant learning curve to set up a suitable development environment. John Also Writer has many styles with name Numbering, but numbers there not enabled. It is ok or it is a bug? @Cor, can you take a look at this one again and see if it's a valid request? If so can we mark as NEW, if not can we close it? Thanks in advance! As the person who originally raised this issue PLEASE implement it as soon as possible. There is absolutely no logical reason for the current behaviour. I can easily do this in Word. step to reproduce: 1: create one document in world 2007/10 then gives bulleting order 2: then press buuton ex: 1. parag steps tu reproduce: 1: create word document (.doc/.docx) 2: apply bulleting style to text 3: press tab then it give foe 1.pra 1.1 prasa means bulleting can be applied level. then 4: create .odt file n try to follow this step it can give look level wise Steps to reproduce problem (from the originator of this issue) Create a custom outline numbered list -> Appendix Numbering Make the level item = A. so that the L2 item = A.1 and the L3 item is = A.1.1 create a custom style based on Header 1 - Appendix 1 Attach the custom numbering list Appendix Numbering Make the outline level for the style = 1 create a custom style based on Header 2 = Appendix 2 Attach the custom numbering list Appendix Numbering Make the outline level for the style = 2 repeat for as many levels as you want Create some text apply Appendix 1 style - expected behaviour = number as A Actual behaviour is correct create some more text apply appendix 2 style - expected behaviour = number as A.1 Actual behaviour number as A It shows Level 1, Outline level = 2 in the status bar. It always applies the style numbering as Level 1 from the custom numbering style irrespective of the Outline Level defined in the paragraph style. It should apply the Outline Level as defined in the style and not always use level 1. I don't understand why there are both a Level and an Outline level shown in the status bar. Thanks for additional information. Reproduced in 3.6.4 on RFR 17 64 bit Simpler steps to reproduce: 1. Select Numbering style and change it so that different levels of numbering become looking different. 2. Assign this Numbering style to any paragraph 3. Select this paragraph and try change option "Outline Level" on tab "Outline&Numbering" in dialog "Paragraph" Expected: numbering become looking different Actually: nothing changed For comparison: buttons "Promote one level" and "Demote one level" change list level. Created attachment 72123 [details]
document that demonstartes problem with numbering level
What is interesting: msWord 2007 opens this document with the same numbering levels, and Calligra Words opens it differently (numbers 1,2,3 becomes without numbering).
*** Bug 99239 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** This seems to be the problem as in bug 62032. (In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #13) > This seems to be the problem as in bug 62032. I agree with you. But would propose not to mark this as a duplicate, because comment #2 here gives a good use case argument that is worth preserving (and the two bugs are linked with "See"). Have modified the summary to try to clarify the issue *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 62032 *** |