Description: linking a text file into a document is a very good function, however, after some time, when the text is finished, it would be good to just have the final text without the linked "sub-doc" files :) so, it could be great if we could clear the link, cut the document off the linked text, keeping the last version of it... imagine a text with 5-8 linked text documents... in different folders, each, and imagine that the text is finalized... in that moment, or even beforehand, it would be great to dissolve the linked texts into the document as if they were original parts, sections of it... ANOTHER great function could be, if a chapter under a "heading 2" style heading could be converted into a linked document, like, "export this section into an external file, and link it"... then, for some time, one could be working on that section... and after that, it could be dissolved back into the document, like nothing had happened in terms of linking external files.. :) Steps to Reproduce: 1. you have a document linked into the document you're working on 2. you refresh it (Menu / tools / update links) 3. then you "dislink it" ("unlink" usually mans delete, that's why I didn't use that) .. aka "dissolve it", make it organic part of the document Actual Results: we can do this manually, by copying the text, then deleting the linked section from the document, and pasting the text in its place... Expected Results: it would be great if we could do this by one click :) Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: why would this be good? because you could work on a part (chapter) of a text... without engaging with a linking method for ever, which you an, of course, "dissolve" manually, by copying the text, then deleting the linked section from the document, and pasting the text in its place... I'm sure that writers oftentimes wish they could focus on just one part of a document... so that when they hit CRTL+S, it wouldn't save a huge text, but only what's being edited... that chapter, that section.. it is not only faster, but also feels cleaner :) PS: a further enhancement could be if the linked document could be "saved as" a new version with keeping (updating) the link to the document... like: under "save as": save as (& update the link) the "link update" could be set @ the section edit dialogue box... perhaps :)
PS: as it usually happens... I just tried to do it manually without the requested "dissolve" functionality... and realized that there is a VERY HANDY way to do that... using the "select all" with the "block area" selection mode... which will select all the text that is linked from an external file... all the text of a section... then CRTL+X and CRTL+V... and you only have to delete the linked empty area... however, I've never even heard of "block area" selection mode before :) and, again, these 3 steps could as well be done automatically, with one click... not to mention an "update all links & dissolve all" function... which could mean, in the case of 5 linked documents 5x3 steps in one click... about which the great gain is not sparing steps and clicks... but the safety... and feeling safe... that we can know that we won't leave out, by any accident, an entire section :) not even one line... or don't paste a text twice, for example... and therefore we don't have to check it really thoroughly...
there one more correction / addition: :::::::::: as to the requested 'dissolve' functionality, it already exists... in the form of 'remove', and even deleting the link to the file would do it.. :::::::::: the 'sections' functionality works fairly well.. you can link a document, and you can remove the section, which "dissolves' the linked document into the document.... perfect...!! this does exactly what I asked for under the name of 'dissolve'... _ __ __ however... "remove" suggests a different functionality, about which 'll file another enhancement... - - - - with sections, the great thing would be, the main aim, so to speak, to be able to turn text under a heading into a section... transferring the text into a new document... and link it "back" into the document, where it was... and to be able to dissolve it... and then again, to be able to externalize it, again... the point being: to be able to "open a section in an external document"... that is, open text under a heading in an external document, and link it back into the document as a section...
Peter, thanks for your ideas and enhancement requests. But finally, it was not clear to me, what is the essence? Although it is all about sections (as far as I can see), you describe different issues. But to handle this in Bugzilla it is very important to have only one issue per bug report. So - because more explanations and ideas fom your side could make it more difficult to grasp the problem - I would propose, that you open a new bug report for every idea / problem and close this report as RESOLVED INSUFFICIENT DATA. Could this be a way?
what I suggested was a convert the text of linked document to normal text in the body of the document and as I added, this already exists, cause "remove" will do just that (as of 06.2020, too) it was meant as an enhancement request, not a bug report(In reply to Dieter from comment #3) > Peter, thanks for your ideas and enhancement requests. > > But finally, it was not clear to me, what is the essence? Although it is all > about sections (as far as I can see), you describe different issues. But to > handle this in Bugzilla it is very important to have only one issue per bug > report. > > So - because more explanations and ideas fom your side could make it more > difficult to grasp the problem - I would propose, that you open a new bug > report for every idea / problem and close this report as RESOLVED > INSUFFICIENT DATA. > > Could this be a way? hi, what I'm doing: closing this as it is invalid (since the suggested enhancement already exists) what I did suggest was a functionality to convert the text of linked document to normal text in the body of the document and as I added, this already exists, cause "remove" will do just that (as of 06.2020, too) I only realized it later :) it was meant as an enhancement request, not a bug report