Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 17068
Wrong numbering of sections within opened DOC files
Last modified: 2004-01-05 16:50:25 UTC
When I open DOC file made in MS Word 2000 (or maybe other version) I get a wrong section numbers. Instead of: III. "Caption 3" I can see: .III"Caption 1" or instead of: I.1.1. I can see: .I.1.1. And after pressing ENTER I get .I.1.2., which is "almost" correct, but not what was in the original file. This bug makes it almost unpossible to use OO for agreements etc, as most of the sections are automatically labeled, so this must work fine...
Created attachment 7848 [details] Wrong section numbering of opened DOC files
Created attachment 8294 [details] Even RC2 has the same problem, but slighly smaller
As you can see, top level chapters have correct numbering, but 2nd and higher levels are bad. Especially you can see )a )b )c )d instead of a) b) c) d).
Created attachment 8988 [details] Section numbering> Even RC3 has the same problem - the bug is still unresolved. I am using still the same DOC file. Then using Lotus Notes viwer, everything is allright, but not in OO.
Created attachment 8989 [details] Here you have how OO RC3 incorrectly translates Word numbering...
RC4 has the same problem, nothing has changed from RC3. It is crutial to fix this, can I help more ????!!!!
I was able to reproduce this with RC4, WinXP, German, BUT I can also see this in Microsoft WordViewer (Version 97). It might be helpful if you could attach a screenshot of the doc opened in MS Word 2000. I have fixed the wrong styles in OOo and exported it again as doc. It works fine in WordViewer 97, could you please try this in Word 2000 (dokument_fixed.doc)?
Created attachment 9293 [details] numbering also destroyed in WordViewer 97
Created attachment 9294 [details] fixed document, works in WordViewer 97
Hi, I can not see any problem, I have more or less the same view in WORD and OOo. It seems that in reporter's document some funny method to create the list has been used. Libor, can you tell us anything concerning this question? I did not test all lists in the document, I have not the time to read a complete "Hamlet" to find one littel mistake ;-) Rafael, which paragraph did you correct? My short tests have the same result as per comments from gieschke 2003-09-14 03:02 PDT: It is a problem in the WORD document. So --> INVALID If someone can supply a WORD document with proved correctly created list, which will cause problems in OOo, he should not hesitate to reopen this issue. Rainer
> Rafael, which paragraph did you correct? I have corrected the (three incorrect) numbering *styles* (WW8Num1, WW8Num2, WW8Num3). Rainer, does my "fixed document, works in WordViewer 97" attachment work on your Word (which version) as expected by reporter? I think there might be a small format change between Word 97 and 2000, exchanging before number and after number content, but this is only a thought.
Created attachment 9320 [details] In W2000 the SAME file looks fine
Created attachment 9321 [details] And this is how corrupted (but in the very different way) it is in Lotus Notes viewer, you are right...
Created attachment 9322 [details] And this is how the same strange section looks fine in W2000
I did not create the document, we have just received it from our partner, so I cannot tell you how it was created... I will try to find another agreements from this partner to find similar problems...
H'i, it seems to be a little more complex than I thougt first, but still I must say that _my_ tests only show a problem in the WORD document. Please let us fist concentrate on the problem )a )b )c )d instead of a) b) c) d) Can anyone find a WORD version in which does not show the ")a )b )c )d" - numbering? Rainer
Closed issue because I do not see any chance to find out what causes the problem. Rainer