Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 89178
let list style creation depend on Load/Save option "ODF format version"
Last modified: 2013-08-07 14:43:03 UTC
If you make a new document in OOo3.0 you cannot generate a list, which uses the old numbering form. But you might need the old form for to exchange documents in ODF1.0 format. OOo3.0 can handle the 2.4 numbering form and you can generate new lists in this form, if you have already one in your document, for example if the document was generated in OOo2.4. Therefore I thing it would be nice to add a style template for the old numbering form. One such style template would be enough. So user who need it, can use it directly, instead of holding OOo2.4 to get it from there.
MRU->FL/OD: in my eyes, this is a better solution then perhaps implementing another compatibility option. There will still be people who won't immediately change to OO 3.0 and a need to exchange document will persist. So, something like a template would be a good "workaround".
My proposal to solve this issue is the following: We already have the Option "ODF format version" - found in dialog menu Tools - Options - Load/Save - General. The new position and space attributes for the list levels of a list style are a new OpenDocument file format feature, which will be introduced in ODF version 1.2. Thus, my proposal is to rely on this option. - If this option is "ODF 1.2 (recommended)", list with the new position and space attributes are generated. - If this option is "ODF 1.1 (OpenOffice.org 2.x)", list with the former position and space attributes are generated. regina, MRU and FL: What is your opinion on my proposal?
I think we should use the new odf version option. See specification: http://specs.openoffice.org/appwide/odf/odf_1-2_migration.odt We have added it just because we want to be sure that one could write the current iso standard with OOo3.
It does not work. Start OOo3.0 Set the Load/Save-option to ODF1.0 Make a new Writer document Write some lines, select them and assign the default unnamed lists with the buttons. Save document. Open document in OOo2.4 Notice, that all indents are lost and set to 0. See also issue 89210. If you do not provide a 2.4 conform list style, then the program (and the spec) would have to be changed so, that when using the "Load/Save-option to ODF1.0" option, the new list styles are converted in a way, that the indents and bullet types are preserved. My idea has been, that you can avoid this, by including a 2.4 conform list style in the style and formatting window.
OD->regina: There is a misunderstanding. My proposed solution is _not_ implemented yet. Thus, it can not work. My suggestion is to implement my solution.
Indeed, I understood you wrong. And you are right, implementing such converting would solve the problem and would be better for those users, who don't know much about styles.
*** Issue 89652 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
*** Issue 89669 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Add me to CC.
Fl->OD: Please implement your proposed solution. Thank you!
*** Issue 90341 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
accepted to fix for OOo 3.0
creation of list have to depend on Load/Save option "ODF format version - adjusting summary accordingly. resolved in cws sw30bf06 - changed files: /sw/inc/numrule.hxx, 1.36.88.2 /sw/source/core/doc/number.cxx, 1.50.16.2 /sw/source/core/doc/docnew.cxx, 1.86.86.2 /sw/source/core/doc/poolfmt.cxx, 1.51.86.2 /sw/source/core/edit/autofmt.cxx, 1.40.88.2 /sw/source/core/unocore/unosett.cxx, 1.57.34.1 /sw/source/ui/app/docstyle.cxx, 1.32.88.1 /sw/source/ui/config/uinums.cxx, 1.15.88.1 /sw/source/ui/shells/txtnum.cxx, 1.16.88.1 /sw/source/ui/wrtsh/wrtsh1.cxx, 1.70.88.2 suppress export of new list level attributes, if option "ODF format version" equals "ODF 1.1 (OpenOffice.org 2.x)": /xmloff/inc/xmloff/xmlnume.hxx, 1.4.48.1 /xmloff/source/style/xmlnume.cxx, 1.32.48.1
OD->MRU: Checked in internal installation set of cws sw30bf06 - please verify.
Verified in CWS sw30bf06.
Checked in DEV300m24.
*** Issue 92237 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
*** Issue 92964 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
*** Issue 93124 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
*** Issue 95594 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***