<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - FORMATTING: redundancy in content.xml" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136434#c13">Comment # 13</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - FORMATTING: redundancy in content.xml" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136434">bug 136434</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de" title="Christian Lehmann <christianw_lehmann@arcor.de>"> Christian Lehmann</a> <pre>(In reply to Mike Kaganski from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=136434#c11">comment #11</a>) > > 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. Moreover, activating this option would introduce the possibility of using two additional fonts. Why should there be nine of them? > > > See <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=136434#c3">comment 3</a>. > > 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. > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > 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.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>