<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Non-hidden children of hidden styles appear in top level of sidebar" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119919#c5">Comment # 5</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Non-hidden children of hidden styles appear in top level of sidebar" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119919">bug 119919</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:tietze.heiko@gmail.com" title="Heiko Tietze <tietze.heiko@gmail.com>"> Heiko Tietze</a> <pre>(In reply to Kenneth Hanson from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=119919#c3">comment #3</a>) > @Heiko I hadn't tested a style tree not inheriting from Default, but I tried > it just now and it works the same either way. Are you using version 6.1? I > see 6.0.4.5 in your comment. > Also, I'm having trouble understanding the objection to hiding children of > hidden styles in the hierarchical view. What else would someone expect to > happen when you right click an entry in a tree and select "hide", except for > the entire subtree to be hidden? As said, when you create MyStyles with lets say A4 below and A4_Letter, A4_Document as children and delete A4 all below should be gone too. But if the tree structure is not that hierarchical with something like Public_Communication > Letter, Declaration, Foo it makes sense to keep the items below. And as mentioned by Thomas it's safer to keep the children than removing them if we discuss what use case is to prefer. > @Heiko (again) I'm not sure if the second paragraph, but it sounds like > you're suggesting flattening the tree such that the children of a hidden > style appear in the position the level the parent would have been. This > sounds even more perilous to me, because it suggests a false relationship > between the styles. Good point. There is no solution that keeps the relation of children consistent if the parent is hidden. > Now, I'd like to give a suggestion of my own. Include a checkbox for *all* > views, which hides/shows hidden styles as appropriate to the view. For > hierarchical, this would mean hiding children of hidden styles, for all > others, it would mean hiding only the hidden styles themselves. All unhidden > entries could be gray, italic, or whatever deemed appropriate. Then, the > separate Hidden Style view might not even be necessary. Sounds reasonable, we have other tickets requesting changes like this (Thomas will find the right bug). Actually "Hidden Styles" as an own category makes no sense.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>