[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 136434] FORMATTING: redundancy in content.xml

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136434

--- Comment #9 from Christian Lehmann <christianw_lehmann at arcor.de> ---
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #5)
> (In reply to Christian Lehmann from comment #0)
> 
> To check the claims, please save the file as a FODT, and then inspect the
> resulting XML, for simplicity - you would have everything in one XML.
> 
> > File ‘content.xml’
> > The section “<office:font-face-decls>” contains 9 font faces only one of
> > which is used in this document.
> 
> Wrong. All 9 are used either in styles, or in text.

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.
> 
> > In the section ‘<office:automatic-styles>’, several text styles have the
> > same definition, differing only in the value of the attribute
> > ‘officeooo:rsid’; but this is devoid of useful effects. In this sense, the
> > following styles are the same:
> > “T1” - “T6”
> > “T7” - “T12”
> > “T13” and “T14”.
> 
> 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?

> 
> > 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 section ‘<text:sequence-decls>’ contains five declarations none of which
> > is used in the text.
> 
> The sequence definitions are data by their own, just like, say, styles or
> macros. You won't want your macros in a document to disappear on save just
> because there were no buttons inserted in the document that used the macros.
> Likewise, prepared sequence definitions or styles are part of data, that
> must be saved.
> 
> That there are several sequence definitions pre-created by default, is a
> different story ...
I was just referring to these.

> 
> > The section ‘<office:text>’ contains 13 occurrences of the tag ‘<text:span
> > text:style-name="Kommentarzeichen">’. A style of this name is also listed
> > among the “Applied Styles” in the panel “Character Styles”. It is, in fact,
> > not applied in the document.
> 
> It is, in fact, *is* applied in the document. E.g., to text "¿Bá		jé".

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.

-- 
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/20201013/10cb1352/attachment-0001.htm>