Issue 12933 - Winword footnote anchor character does not have to appear at the start of the footnote
Summary: Winword footnote anchor character does not have to appear at the start of the...
Alias: None
Product: Writer
Classification: Application
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: OOo 1.1 Beta
Hardware: PC Windows 95
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
Keywords: oooqa
Depends on:
Reported: 2003-04-01 23:30 UTC by Unknown
Modified: 2013-08-07 14:38 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

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

rtf file which when imported gives OO endnote numbering error (2.00 KB, application/octet-stream)
2003-04-01 23:31 UTC, Unknown
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description Unknown 2003-04-01 23:30:24 UTC
When importing an RTF file created by WordPerfect 9.00738 (Win 95) endnotes are 
misnumbered following the ninth, not in the text but in the endnotes 
themselves. 10 => 00, 11 => 11, 12 => 22, etc. Attached should be an rtf file 
which gives me the problem. I have also experienced this with imported a MS 
word doc but cannot duplicate it. I don't know if this happens with footnotes.
Comment 1 Unknown 2003-04-01 23:31:26 UTC
Created attachment 5404 [details]
rtf file which when imported gives OO endnote numbering error
Comment 2 prgmgr 2003-07-02 17:09:59 UTC
Thank you for using and supporting OOo.

Verified in 1.1 Beta 2.
Comment 3 h.ilter 2003-07-03 10:39:06 UTC
Reassigned to MRU
Comment 4 michael.ruess 2003-07-14 11:55:24 UTC
MRU->CMC: The RTF code produced by WP looks very different from the
code MS Word produces, when the text contains footnotes/endnotes. As
it looks, even Word is not able, to interpret the sample file fully
correct. When I look into the note options in Word, it displays a
different format e.g. 

Will we ever be able to interpret such simplified RTF better?
Comment 5 michael.ruess 2003-07-14 12:02:30 UTC
Re-targeted to 2.0
Comment 6 caolanm 2003-07-18 09:02:25 UTC
cmc->ama: The problem here is that in .doc and in .rtf the footnote
anchor in the main text is a property of the preceeding character, and
not a true physical element of its own. Being superscript is a
secondary property on the footnote anchor character. 

In word the footnote anchor character is not actually automatically
prepended to the footnote itself by word, it is only copied there by
the UI when you insert a footnote and a superscript property applied
to it, the user can select this text in the footnote and delete it if
they wish, or otherwise change its properties. For automatic footnote
numbering a placeholder character is used and its value calculated.
This placeholder is also possible to delete from the footnote to leave
it unnumbered in the footnote itself. 

Generally the user doesn't delete the footnote prefix character so the
algorithm to attempt to remove the first chararacter from the footnote
on the assumption that the footnote anchor character that will be
prepended to the footnote will be the same as the removed character works.

Nevertheless documents like this .rtf document are possible in word
where the characters in the maintext with footnotes attached are
actually superscripted 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2 and the respective
footnotes themselves start with unsuperscripted
1,2,3,4,5,6,8,8,9,1,1,1. So the footnote anchor character doesn't
match the starting character of the footnote in value or superscript

I can see no proper solution in the filter, except some hacks to
search for common prefixes, but that would fail in some circumstances
and force the starting characters in the footnotes here into superscript.
Comment 7 andreas.martens 2003-07-23 16:38:32 UTC
I'm not sure that we'll change this for the 2.0.
Comment 8 andreas.martens 2004-04-27 09:32:30 UTC
We will not find a solution for OOo2.0.
Comment 9 christianjunker 2005-07-08 22:08:04 UTC
cyb->ama: is this something Win95 specific? Furthermore, if this is not possible
to fix properly, shouldn't we close?