Created attachment 132914 [details] .odt file to reproduce the problem Steps to reproduce: - open the attached document. - Remark that this document contains some fields which are zotero citations. => these zotero citations are generally greyed out, except one which is not. Why is that?
(In reply to Frederic Parrenin from comment #0) > Created attachment 132914 [details] > .odt file to reproduce the problem > > Steps to reproduce: > - open the attached document. > - Remark that this document contains some fields which are zotero citations. > => these zotero citations are generally greyed out, except one which is not. > Why is that? Which of them is "the one"?
Ok, it is in this: We also used 10 points to take into account the (Marcott et al., 2014) centennial events, Arch Linux 64-bit Version: 5.4.0.0.alpha1+ Build ID: aca48f46895811009ec90665d816ef835f0694be CPU threads: 8; OS: Linux 4.10; UI render: default; VCL: kde4; Locale: fi-FI (fi_FI.UTF-8); Calc: group Built on 30th April 2017 3.3
On pc Debian x86-64 with master sources updated today, I see 3 gray fields: - "(Parrenin et al., 2013)" - 2 times "(Marcott et al., 2014)" (the second one is just after the first one) Is another field expected? if yes which one?
There is a third Marcott et al. (2014) reference on the fourth line which is not greyed out.
(In reply to Frederic Parrenin from comment #4) > There is a third Marcott et al. (2014) reference on the fourth line which is > not greyed out. Sorry Frederic, it corresponds exactly what Buovjaga had told in a previous comment. After having unzipped the odt file, I noticed that the KO one, had a inner span: <text:span text:style-name="T6">(Marcott et al., 2014)</text:span> all the other ones don't have So I selected all the KO part, then used menu Format/Clear direct formatting and it finally appeared as a field.
(In reply to Julien Nabet from comment #5) > So I selected all the KO part, then used menu Format/Clear direct formatting > and it finally appeared as a field. Frederic: seems like this report should be closed as WORKSFORME. Do you have an idea how the inner span appeared? What sort of formatting was applied?
Thanks for the solution! No, I don't know how this formatting appeared.
(In reply to Frederic Parrenin from comment #7) > Thanks for the solution! > No, I don't know how this formatting appeared. Thank you for your feedback, let's put this one to WFM then.