[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 115553] [ENHANCEMENT] Para/Char Styles in Writer: make possible to toggle font attributes

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115553

--- Comment #2 from ajlittoz <page74010-sf at yahoo.fr> ---
@Heiko Tietze: I think there is a misunderstanding on my proposal.

What I'd like to have is a way to set style attributes depending on the current
value in the parent style. Presently, you can only force values (either set or
cleared) or keep the parent ones (button "Standard").

When you want to "contrast" against the parent, you must know the parent value
to set it differently, leading to duplication of styles to be sure one is
available for the desired effect (e.g. italic in a roman paragraph or roman in
an italic paragraph).

This goes against ergonomics and induces manual editing when something is
changed in parent style. It's like applying direct formatting in a higher layer
of styling.

This is what you qualify as my "first" claim.

My second claim is related to my new "relative" attribute value and the mixture
between paragraph/character styles.

In the present Writer (ODF?) state, these style families are completely
separated: inheritance rules are internal to the family and define what will be
applied. That is, character styles attributes are set according to character
style ancestors, full stop, and are "stamped" over the basic paragraph
attributes.

I mentioned in the initial post that traditional typographic rules are rather
"relative" than "absolute" and that can't be translated in the
paragraph/character styles use because families are segregated.

So this is my second claim: if the first claim is implemented, there is a need
to indicate that the final attribute values in a character style (after
applying inheritance rules) are "relative" to those of the paragraph style.

I understand this implies a lot of work inside Writer and I'd be glad to read
the other ticket to see how it relates to mine.

>I vote to resolve this issue as WONTFIX.

It is not clear if this statement is against the whole proposal or against the
second part of it only.

Do you know of any workaround for the first part?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.