Issue 112838

OOo 3.2 fixed a genuine problem wrt pasting numbered lists. See Issue 86492.
The fix has however introduced what I believe is unintended behaviour which is
causing me more grief than the original problem.
The new behaviour has already been described here
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=28176
and in Issue 110110.

The problem reported in Issue 110110 is Closed (Won't fix) because it works as
per the specification - and it basically does, at least for simple examples.

I believe the specification needs additional clarification for more complex
situations. Let me explain.

Consider two lists:
1. itemA
2. itemB
3. itemC

1. itemD
2. itemE
3. itemF

If itemE is pasted into the first list in front of itemB, the intended result is:
1. itemA
2. itemE
3. itemB
4. itemC

and OOo 3.2 does this correctly.

Now consider these two lists:
1. itemA
2. itemB
3. itemC

1. itemD
2. itemE
 (a) sub-itemA
 (b) sub-itemB
3. itemE

If all of itemE is pasted into the first list in front of itemB, the intended
result (as produced by OOo 3.1) is:
1. itemA
2. itemE
 (a) sub-itemA
 (b) sub-itemB
3. itemB
4. itemC

But OOo 3.2 produces:
1. itemA
2. itemE
3. sub-itemA
4. sub-itemB
5. itemB
6. itemC

i.e. the numbering style at the insertion point is being applied to the whole
paste buffer contents, over-riding all pre-applied numbering including "no
numbering".
Furthermore, if a sub-item includes a table, the numbering is propagated through
every cell in the table!!! Hardly what was intended.

The relevant part of section 7.8 of specification
http://specs.openoffice.org/writer/numbering/NumberingBullet1.sxw is:
Clipboard content: Part/complete numbering and other paragraphs
Pasted Within a Numbering/Bullet list: Extend target numbering (Formatted text only)

I find the specification lacking in clarity when it comes to my second example,
particularly the meaning of "Extend target numbering".

For pasting style-formatted data within an existing list...
The OOo 3.1 interpretation is "Adjust the numbering so the new data is part of
the existing list".
The OOo 3.2 interpretation is "Apply current numbering style to all of the new
data, regardless of whatever numbering may or may not already be applied to it".

The former interpretation is more likely to produce the results the user is
expecting.

Certainly there were other pasting situations were OOo 3.1 was broken, but
pasting complex data into an existing list was not one of of them.