Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 64904
Make the behavior of LS/LE in TOC more intuitive
Last modified: 2013-08-07 14:38:26 UTC
Issue: The "Insert Index/Table" dialog does not apply font formats correctly. The font style it displays is totally counterintuitive. ************ Note: For illustration, we will use the user guide downloadable from Issue 29679. (Download the latest master document; not the individual chapters. Only master document has TOC.) ************* detailed description: To prove this, right-click in TOC and select "Edit index/Table" option. Selecdt the "Entries" tab. Click in various buttons like the "LS", "F#", "F", "LF" etc and examnine their font properties. Compare that with the actual properties shown ion the document (or the preview pane). There are several aspects that are counterintuitive: 1. The "LS" has "internet link" style by default. The presence of "LS" itself changes the font style of the rest of the entries to "hyperlink"; even if their own font style is "default" 2. The font style of "F#" and "F" entries is "<none>". Yet in actual document, they appear as hyperlinks. 3. Changing the font style of "F#" and "F" to "Default" does not change anything: The display remains hyperlinked. 4. The font style of "LF" button is inconsequential altogether, as changing its style does not affact anything at all! ***** In fact, Writer's main GUI also displays the TOC font style wrongly: (This could be aa separate bug, but noted here to complete the discussion). Open the odt file and place the cursor inside the TOC. Look at the font format. It shows "Default". But actually the TOC entries are formatted with "Internet links" font style (i.e., blue underlined font).
Reassigned to ES.
Since you reported this issue, we have fixed some problems with character styles vanishing from this dialog. Please try to rebuild the entry structure anew and see if the charcter styles a retained after saving reloading. Feel free to reopen if not.
closed
ES, I am disappointed to see a sloppy answer after such a long time (10.5 months). You have not even bothered to check what's described in this issue! In fact, *none* of the issues are resolved in RC3. And your response does not fit the issues I raised here. Why close an issue just because *somebody* did *something* in the TOC-related code? And why resolve it as "WorksForMe"? If you are SURE that somebody has fixed it, it should have been resolved as "Fixed". Or, if you are not clear what this is all about, please set NEED MORE INFO. The user of an issue is not supposed to wait for such a long time. In other cases, such issues would have remained closed simply because the reporter has given up; not because anything got solved really. I am attaching a file this time. Please see it carefully and respond. Reopening the issue.
Reopening
Created attachment 43765 [details] Shows the problems
Your just *asuming* things! Indeed I loaded the master document you pointed to, recreated the index deleteing the previous defined hyperlink and rebuilt it anew assigning new or none styles. 1. The LS and LE are not "closed" elements like T or E. They work like HTML tags: <></>. everything that is between the tags gets the formatting of the tags. Only some font attributes of other styles will be included (i.e. Setting style "Example" for E will change the font but keep th color and underline of hyperlinks). To get rid of the hyperlink formatting, set Default to LS and LE 2. see 1. 3. Same as 2. E and E# inheritate their styles from LS/LE. Change the charcter style for E to "Emphasize" and you will notice a change in attributes. 4. Yes, changing LE alone does not change anything because LS and LE work together like HTML brakets (See 1.) So regarding all this not as bug. One needs to get familiar with it. Did you understand better now it works? To the "we fixed an issue with character styles". Yes we had a atyle saving problem in this dialog which has been fixed some builds ago. I thought you were describing this problem.
Well, I know how this works. That's why I have not reported a broken behavior. The point is that it's not intuitive, and so it must change. In HTML, we have only tags. They do not come with their own parameters, such as "bold pair of <></>" , "italic pair of <></>", etc. They themselves are devoid of any parameters. but here the LS and LF can be given any of the character style. So there the comparison fails. Further, although LS and LF are considered pair, they can have different characteristics. Here the comparison fails even more. Desired: 1. LS and LF buttons must not have any characteristics. They are plain markers by themselves. So when we select these buttons, gray out the character style. 2. Provide the other parts with their own independent styles, not dependent upon LS and LF.
Forgot to add this- 2 (continued-) The "hyperlink" behavior and character style of index entries must not be linked at all. 3. By default, insert LS and LF in TOC (and also in Index). That is because most users would like to make them hyperlinked. 4. Let all entries (except LS and LF) inherit their character style from the actual text in the document (including superscrip and subscript). The "internet link" style is NOT preferred for these entries, because too many lines in the TOC list it makes it unreadable. 5. The "Entries" tab of the "Insert Index/TOC" window allows us to select only from the predefined list of character styles, and then edit that style. Instead, provide the Format>Character dialog directly, so that we can set the style freely. I know I have clubbed several existing issues here, but then it gives the complete desired scenario in one place.
So, ok. I can see some enhancement posibilities here. But as you say in the end, you stuck different things together, thus it could be closed as INVALID: 1 problem = 1issue... But let's see your points ---------- 1. LS and LF buttons must not have any characteristics. They are plain markers by themselves. So when we select these buttons, gray out the character style. -> Ok ---------- 2. Provide the other parts with their own independent styles, not dependent upon LS and LF. -> Ok ---------- 3. By default, insert LS and LF in TOC (and also in Index). That is because most users would like to make them hyperlinked. -> Ok. But not in Alphabetical indexes. It is not possible to reference to a word when having a page bumber as refrerence. This is out of topic here anyway. ---------- 4. Let all entries (except LS and LF) inherit their character style from the actual text in the document (including superscrip and subscript). The "internet link" style is NOT preferred for these entries, because too many lines in the TOC list it makes it unreadable. -> here you address 3 different problems in one! :( ---- a) "all entries inherit their character style from the actual text in the document" -> No, because I certainly don't wan't to have a TOC with 24pts font size entries, just because my Heading have this formatting. The TOC character style must remain different. ---- b) "including superscrip and subscript" -> see issue 27377. ---- c) No "Internet link" character style - unreadable. -> Ok. ---------- 5. Instead of editing exisiting styles, provide a direct Format - Character dialog. -> Not sure this is more convenient than having a well known style name. Having different hard formattings instead of short style name may have an influence on the performance... ========== Sum up: Make the the default TOC structure containing LS/LE, whithout "Internet link" formatting and disable character style setting for LS/LE.
Fantastic analysis and fast response too! I agree with your responses where you have said "no", except point#5. The current arrangement forces you to pick a character style and then edit that style ITSELF. But it does not allow the user to do any of the following: 1. Create *another* style based on the currently selected style. 2. Create a new style and apply it. 3. Just apply different formats to the elements, without bothering to change the styles. The only way to do any of that is to quit the "edit TOC" dialog altogether, and create another character style first, and then come back to edit the TOC. So the method I suggested is much more flexible. Thanks!
*** Issue 76502 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
*** Issue 76503 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***