<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Overwriting Writer styles does not overwrite changes to Marginalia paragraph style" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130719#c29">Comment # 29</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Overwriting Writer styles does not overwrite changes to Marginalia paragraph style" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130719">bug 130719</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:sdc.blanco@youmail.dk" title="sdc.blanco@youmail.dk">sdc.blanco@youmail.dk</a> <pre>@Mike, I am grateful for your willingness to help me overcome my handicap of not understanding what is going on here, which of course is also the point of OP -- to give a clear "note" about what is going on... >From your answers, it seems that I am close, but the "showstopper" is inadequate grasp of the "built-in program defaults" and their consequences in "overwrite". So ... continuing....by concentrating on your latest formulation. > There should no difference between template and normal document IIUC. Until I hear otherwise, I will work with this ‟fact.” This fact implies no need for separate sentences for ‟document” and ‟template”. > I don't think that word "limited" is correct in your sentence > "only a limited subset of common styles and/or styles modified > from a default will be loaded". Limited by what or whom? Might be my misunderstanding. I had interpreted the discussion in relation to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=130719#c3">comment 3</a> to mean that the (limited) list of styles named there would be loaded and ‟overwrite”. (That is what motivated the file1/file2 experiment.) But I have apparently misunderstood that discussion. I had assumed that list of styles in <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=130719#c3">comment 3</a> were always loaded (i.e., "limited set of a default"), whether modified and not, and therefore "overwriting". > It's naturally limited by the list of styles explicitly present > in the source file, Yes. Covered by mention of ‟applied” and ‟modified” styles. > but "limited" in your sentence doesn't sound like referring to > that natural limit (which doesn't need that qualification). Agree: so-called ‟natural limit” does not need qualification. Confirm: ‟limited” was meant to refer to something else, what you called ‟the defaults built in the program” (– but it appears that I have not grasped this adequately yet). > Then, "a" in "a default" - we actually are talking about *the* default > in the program, not "a" default in unknown place. Ok. I was uncertain here. For example, in 7.1, there is a ‟Simple” template and a ‟Default” template. (When I open a document with ‟Simple”, then only about 10 Styles are loaded). But in this case, maybe no need to refer to ‟default template” at all (given: (a) different templates available and (b) initial point that no difference between ‟template” and ‟document”). > And this makes it necessary to keep clear distinction between *the defaults > built in the program* (*not* related to *any* template), and *a template* > (just another kind of document which may contain arbitrary definitions of > some styles). I’m trying. (-: This seems to be where my understanding is inadequate. And also seems to be the only point that is not under control yet. If I could understand ‟the defaults” and their consequences/implications in the overwrite situation, then I should be able to find a way to express it clearly (with the other points). > The overwriting applies to the cases when both source and destination > contains a style with the same name. Any kind of style - from the > categories checked in the dialog. Understood about overwrite. My query was more general, but will return to this later (if necessary), after I understand the ‟default” issue.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>