[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 108820] Footnote number field not displayed in repeated table heading

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108820

Yousuf Philips (jay) <philipz85 at hotmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|needsUXEval                 |
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
                 CC|                            |cno at nouenoff.nl,
                   |                            |philipz85 at hotmail.com,
                   |                            |rb.henschel at t-online.de,
                   |                            |vstuart.foote at utsa.edu
             Blocks|                            |103100
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #7 from Yousuf Philips (jay) <philipz85 at hotmail.com> ---
Looks like a bug to me as the footnote grey highlight does appear in the
repeated table header and the footnote appears in both places in Word 2010. So
lets set to NEW for the time being.

But in Word 2010, the comment that was added to repeated table header also
appears in the original table header, so not sure how independent each repeated
table header should be. So lets ask some expert.

Regina, Cor, Stuart: What is your take?

(In reply to Dieter Praas from comment #6)
> So I added the keyword needsUXEval. So I hope that someone else can assess,
> whether this is a bug or not.

Only adding the keyword wont get Heiko to notice, as you need to also add the
ux-advise email to the CC list as well. Luckily you added a meta bug, which is
how i noticed. :D


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103100
[Bug 103100] [META] Writer table bugs and enhancements
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-bugs/attachments/20170703/5b374ff9/attachment-0001.html>