https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75215
Owen Genat <owen.ge...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|ruby style family default |Default (common) style
|styles are ignored |definition is ignored for
| |ruby text
Version|4.2.0.4 release |3.5.7.2 release
--- Comment #6 from Owen Genat <owen.ge...@gmail.com> ---
To be clear (to the OP) I am not stating this is NOT a bug but rather that an
expert is required to determine if using a default (common) style definition in
isolation is considered sufficient / valid. The section of ODF quoted tends to
indicate that this MAY be an implementational issue, however using a default
(common) style definition in isolation may also be valid. Summary amended for
clarity. Both original (common style) and newly provided (automatic style)
examples tested under:
- v3.5.7.2 Build ID: 3215f89-f603614-ab984f2-7348103-1225a5b
- v4.1.6.2 Build ID: 40ff705089295be5be0aae9b15123f687c05b0a
- v4.2.6.3 Build ID: 3fd416d4c6db7d3204c17ce57a1d70f6e531ee21
- v4.3.1.2 Build ID: 958349dc3b25111dbca392fbc281a05559ef6848
Respective behaviour is identical in all cases i.e., common style example fails
to render correctly, while automatic style example renders as expected. Version
therefore set to v3.5.7.2.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
