<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - Redundancy in Table of Contents and Indexes" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134781#c13">Comment # 13</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - Redundancy in Table of Contents and Indexes" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134781">bug 134781</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:page74010-sf@yahoo.fr" title="ajlittoz <page74010-sf@yahoo.fr>"> ajlittoz</a> <pre>(In reply to Mike Kaganski from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=134781#c10">comment #10</a>) > Or maybe instead moved into the existing "User-defined" type, as additional > checkbox "[x] Category (number range):" plus the Category and Display list > boxes. I've seldom used "User-Defined". Apart from "Styles" and "Index marks" options, it looks like the other possibilities are related to what we can see in the Navigator. They allow to finely select the Tables, Frames, OLE Objects. I don't know how to understand Graphics: does this map to Images and Drawing objects in the Navigator? This interrogation of mine shows it is not clear. There may be an overlap with the Object mode of "Table of Figures"/"Index of Tables". Once again, I haven't experimented but it is likely that this object mode will end up with all the named objects of the Navigator. Therefore, the "User-Defined" is likely to be preferable to "Tables …"/"Index …" for fine-grain control. As a "simple" user, I prefer several "Type" selection covering targeted purposes (table of X) rather than a catch-all User-Defined with too many checkboxes, resulting in visual clutter and possibly difficulty to understand what to check to get the desired result.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>