Created attachment 143515 [details]
Index of current 754 draft, showing mixed italic and roman fonts
The IEEE 754 floating-point standard (of which I am Editor) includes an alphabetical index of operations. While this was correct through late 2017, more recent drafts show font changes in the middle of words in the index, even though (without exception) there are no font changes in the entry in the text (they are all in plain text with no markup within the index words).
Here is a typical excerpt from the content.xml; the word 'decodeDecimal' only appears once in the .xml file:
<text:alphabetical-index-mark-start text:id="IMark1055621192"/><text:span text:style-name="T3">decodeDecimal</text:span><text:alphabetical-index-mark-end text:id="IMark1055621192"/>
In the generated Index (created by Tools -> Update -> Update All) this entry appears with 'decodeDec' in italic and 'imal' in Roman in both LibreOffice Writer and the exported PDF (see attached PDF -- the two pages of index). Neither 'decodeDec' nor 'imal' appear as separate text in the .xml, except in the generated index:
<text:s text:c="2"/>26</text:p><text:p text:style-name="P411"><text:span text:style-name="Bold"><text:span text:style-name="T2">decodeDec</text:span></text:span><text:span text:style-name="Bold">imal</text:span> <text:s text:c="2"/>26</text:p>
Many other entries have similarly weird italic/roman font changes that correspond in no obvious way to the words in the source document.
We are hoping to publish around the end of 2018, but will not be able to close the ballot stage while this index problem persists.
Could you please provide a (anonimized if required) sample with the issue?
And also could you please check with 6.0 and/or the pre-release of 6.1 if the issue persists?
Setting to NEEDINFO. Please set back to UNCONFIRMED when provided the information.
It's a bit difficult to provide the full source as this is an IEEE standard under revision and not approved. In particular it could not be posted to a public URL (but I could make it available to an individual privately purely for testing -- let me know if that would help).
Re 6.0 -- I thought I had the latest updates, and checked for those before posting this! Just checked again and again got:
LibreOffice 5.4 is up to date.
Should I be doing something different than 'Help -> Check for Updates'?
(In reply to Mike Cowlishaw from comment #3)
> It's a bit difficult to provide the full source as this is an IEEE standard
> under revision and not approved. In particular it could not be posted to a
> public URL (but I could make it available to an individual privately purely
> for testing -- let me know if that would help).
Well - in my case, unfortunately no: I wouldn't be able to work on this ATM (I could only reproduce/confirm); so I would be a wrong person. I suspected something like that - that's why I hoped you could anonymize the file, replacing/removing parts, to make some testing document without confidential data, but with the problem.
> Re 6.0 -- I thought I had the latest updates, and checked for those before
> posting this! Just checked again and again got:
> LibreOffice 5.4 is up to date.
> Should I be doing something different than 'Help -> Check for Updates'?
Just use the Download page from LibreOffice official site: https://www.libreoffice.org/download/download/. Note also the pre-release versions at the bottom of that page.
On the example source:
I'd hoped my inclusion of the XML source was sufficient, but if not I can try and make a cut-down version of the source to reproduce from scratch. Is there a way to (say) delete pages 1-60 and 62-80? This is a big document, so select and delete would be extremely tedious...
On later versions:
Thanks for that! I just installed 220.127.116.11 on a different machine, loaded the latest draft and rebuilt the Index. Problem is still there :-(.
(In reply to Mike Cowlishaw from comment #5)
> Is there a way to (say) delete pages 1-60 and 62-80? This is a big document,
> so select and delete would be extremely tedious...
Well - still you need to select and delete. Just navigate to page 60; put cursor, and use Shift+Ctrl+Home to select all to the start. Delete. Then go to page 2 (former 62) and use Shift+Ctrl+End to select to end. Or put cursor to start of selection, scroll down using scrollbar, and shift+click to end...
Ah, thanks, I wasn't aware of those shortcuts. Will give it a try at the weekend (travelling mañana).
Created attachment 143594 [details]
Source .odt 1-page extract + generated index
This is one page of the current IEEE 754 draft showing lots of index entries (and some plain text removed). The second page is the index generated by Update All, showing the font anomalies.
OK, have managed to create an .odt with 1 page source and index generated from it. Have attached.
Repro with 6.2+ and 5.4.3, not with 5.4.1.
Document can be corrected, just update and save with lower version, like 18.104.22.168.
Saving with an earlier version isn't really an option because the document approved by the committee was/is saved by the current version. Also, I have low confidence that pagination would be unchanged, so cannot just use the Index from the old-saved version...
Bisected with win 6.0 repo to https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=141d4427d2d2db6a16133fcf7571798233a99cb0
tdf#99689 allow Subscript in Illustration Index...
... and Index of Tables.
Adding Cc: to Tamás Bunth
1. Open attachment 143594 [details]
2. Right-click the index on page 2 and Update index
Nothing happens in current versions.
Not sure what "Nothing happens" means here -- is the problem now fixed? I.e., is it safe to try new version of LibreOffice? (I am currently on a 5.x version and using a script to fix the XML content.)
Thanks -- Mike
(In reply to Mike Cowlishaw from comment #13)
> Not sure what "Nothing happens" means here -- is the problem now fixed?
> I.e., is it safe to try new version of LibreOffice? (I am currently on a
> 5.x version and using a script to fix the XML content.)
> Thanks -- Mike
"Nothing happens" is the problem. If you update the index in a version without the problem, the undesired formatting goes away.
Sounds good -- thanks.
This IEEE Standard revision is now in ballot, so I have taken the opportunity to upgrade LibreOffice from 22.214.171.124 (x64) to 126.96.36.199 (x64).
Unfortunately this problem does not appear to be fixed. If I refresh the Index (or create an entirely new one) index entries still have various arbitrary font changes in the middle of index entry words.
I find I am still confused; in comment 14:
"If you update the index in a version without the problem, the undesired formatting goes away."
... so which current version does not have the problem? 188.8.131.52 does have the problem.
(In reply to Mike Cowlishaw from comment #17)
> I find I am still confused; in comment 14:
> "If you update the index in a version without the problem, the undesired
> formatting goes away."
> ... so which current version does not have the problem? 184.108.40.206 does have
> the problem.
As Timur said in comment 10, the problem is not yet in 5.4.1. You can download the old version here: https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/
Install it in parallel: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Installing_in_parallel
Hi, thanks for the reply -- but that old version paginates differently and line-breaks differently. So an index generated with the old version will not match the documented edited with a newer version.
I cannot edit the whole document with the old version because that would re-introduce the artifacts that caused the IEEE committee to instruct me to move to newer versions.
I can, for now, continue to semi-manually update the XML after every update (I have a script that does the actual XML changes, but visual inspection of the XML is necessary to determine the 'Tnnn' that has to be changed to 'Bold').
But this must be a very easy error to diagnose .. some piece of code is inserting a tag pair in the middle of a plain-text word. And I think the version number where it happened is known?
I would very much appreciate some indication of when this will be fixed; not just for me anymore (I can continue to 'hack it' with my script) but for the next Editor of this standard .. and of course anyone else who is having the same problem.
Dear Mike Cowlishaw,
To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year.
There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present.
If you have time, please do the following:
Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/
If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice.
If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice.
Please DO NOT
Update the version field
Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker)
Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not
appropriate in this case)
If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so:
1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/
2. Test your bug
3. Leave a comment with your results.
4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo';
4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword
Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://kiwiirc.com/nextclient/irc.freenode.net/#libreoffice-qa
Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone!
Happy to report that the prblem has been fixed in 220.127.116.11.
Happy to report that this problem is fixed in 18.104.22.168.