https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136434
--- Comment #14 from Mike Kaganski <mikekagan...@hotmail.com> ---
(In reply to Christian Lehmann from comment #13)
> (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #11)
> > > It appears we are talking past each other. What matters to the user is
> > > what
> > > he can see in the editing window. The nine font declarations mention fonts
> > > like 'Lohit Devanagari', 'Noto Sans CJK' and the like, none of which are
> > > visible to the user in this particular document, be it in direct formats,
> > > be
> > > it in the styles applied. I conclude that this information (whatever its
> > > origin) does not need to be stored in the file.
> >
> > It only is "not visible" to you because you chose not to see it: namely, you
> > likely don't have Asian and CTL support enabled in Options->Language
> > Settings->Languages. It is *hidden* from people that don't choose to see it,
> > but it doesn't mean it's inaccessible, or that it should be dropped. The
> > styles (and direct formatting) has the full set of settings that describes
> > its appearance, which includes possibility that someone later types a
> > Chinese or Arabic characters there in that paragraph.
>
> Indeed, I had not. Even if I activate those languages, the 'Asian Text Font'
> and the 'CTL Font' offered for use are different. And the two fonts I
> mentioned are not even offered in the dropdown list.
Just tested with attachment 165087. The Default Paragraph Style has "Cambria",
"Noto Serif CJK SC", and "Lohit Devanagari". Heading paragraph style adds
"Liberation Serif" and "Noto Sans CJK SC". "ex_gloss" paragraph style adds
"Times New Roman". "ex_a" style adds "Arial Unicode MS". And finally, "Lohit
Devanagari" and "Cambria" are there in the fonts list in two variants each,
having style:font-family-generic and style:font-pitch attributes for second
copy; possibly that's needed for some compatibility settings related to Word
import. I see in UI all 9 fonts used in the XML, in expected positions.
>
> Moreover, activating this option would introduce the possibility of using
> two additional fonts. Why should there be nine of them?
Two for each style. And for each direct formatting.
>
> > > > See comment 3.
> > > That is certainly a helpful hint. However, again, why would you want to
> > > store this information with the file, if it is inaccessible the user?
> >
> > It is available - when user uses Edit->Track Changes->Compare Document.
> >
> The point was not whether this can be made visible to the user (I have not
> succeeded using this method), but whether this information is of any use to
> him.
If you know that you are not going to compare versions of documents, you have
the option to disable this - see comment 3. Software cannot figure if user
needs it or not.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Styles T4 – T6 contain specifications of fonts which are never used.
> > > >
> > > > This doesn't make sense. The fonts are "used" as soon as the style is
> > > > used.
> > > > If characters present in a text run that uses the style (DF actually)
> > > > don't
> > > > need some script, that doesn't mean "the style should be cleaned up,
> > > > such as
> > > > when user finally decides to write some Arabic or Chinese characters,
> > > > they
> > > > would appear in something else compared to what had been defined
> > > > originally".
> > >
> > > Again, this answer doesn't make sense to me. Let's consider an example:
> > > The
> > > XML alleges that a style named 'T4' is applied to the word 'block' in the
> > > file. This fact, however, is not visible to the user. In his perspective,
> > > the entire paragraph is formatted with the Default Character Style. "T4"
> > > is
> > > in no way accessible to him.
> >
> > The automatic styles is the LibreOffice way to express direct formatting. So
> > T4 *is* available to user, through properties of the text that has this
> > automatic style applied.
> >
> We are talking about parsimony. Why do we need T1 - T14, each with its own
> definition, if most of them appear as the same to the user?
Each of them differs at least with officeooo:rsid. This allows to compare
versions of documents if user needs that.
>
> > >
> > > This is true. Since it is not an LO Writer Style, it probably stems from
> > > an
> > > earlier MS Word version of the document. Again, the question is why a
> > > style
> > > that was specified at the level of a block - in this case, a comment - is
> > > assigned to single elements contained in the block.
> >
> > This is not related to this issue, and is something to ask the author.
>
> No, it is an issue of how LO Writer stores a character style that the user
> specified for an entire paragraph. I had asked this in a different bug
> report and will take it up there.
This is unrelated to this issue. Period.
Generally all issues you raised seem to be lack of knowledge.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
