Created attachment 158600 [details] Doc file containing a URL that gets word-wrapped Version: 6.3.5.2 (x64) Build ID: dd0751754f11728f69b42ee2af66670068624673 CPU threads: 8; OS: Windows 10.0; UI render: default; VCL: win; Locale: en-CA (en_CA); UI-Language: en-US Calc: threaded I was writing a report in MS Word, and it struck me as strange that the page count was different when I opened it in LibreOffice. I'd just nicely fitted all of my references on one page in Word, so it was a bit awkward to just have that one reference leaking onto a second page in LibreOffice. I managed to narrow down the difference: For some reason, LibreOffice was word-wrapping one of the URLs differently (see attached file for a minimal working example). In MS Word, it wraps the URL "https://www.netscout.com/sites/default/files/2019-03/SECR_005_EN-1901%E2%80%93WISR.pdf" right after "/2019-". But in LibreOffice, it wraps the URL after "/SECR_005_EN-", which pushes it onto an additional line. I'm not sure if this is intentional behaviour or not (feel free to close this issue if there's some existing reason why LibreOffice word wrap works this way). This doesn't seem to be related to the fact that it's formatted as a hyperlink. If I leave the URL in plain text, the same word wrap difference happens. My version of Word is 2003, but I tried it out with Word Online (Office 365) as well, and the behaviour here is the same as with Word 2003. (Just as a point of reference, I tried out what Google Docs does, and it just doesn't wrap the URL on any hyphens at all. The URL just gets pushed onto a second line and it gets wrapped on the very last character in the line.)
I confirm, that MS Word and LO behaves different. But the main difference is, that the hyperlinks starts in a new line (that's the same in an odt-file). I think that causes the different behaviour. So for me, the bug is something like: "Hyperlink always starts in a new line, if it doesn't fit the line with text" Do you agree? BTW: You should never wrap the URL after a hyperlink, because it's not clear, if the hyphen is part of the URL or not.
(In reply to Dieter from comment #1) > So for me, the bug is something like: "Hyperlink always starts in a new > line, if it doesn't fit the line with text" Do you agree? Ahiijny: we are waiting for your reply
> So for me, the bug is something like: "Hyperlink always starts in a new > line, if it doesn't fit the line with text" Do you agree? I think that's accurate, yes. Because of this behaviour in LO, sometimes the text in LO takes up more lines than the text in MS Word. > BTW: You should never wrap the URL after a hyperlink, because it's not clear, if the hyphen is part of the URL or not. You have a point. But both LO and MS Word seem to already do this to some extent though, so I don't know what to do about that...
[Automated Action] NeedInfo-To-Unconfirmed
Thinking about this issue I think, that word wrap behaviour of hyperlinks is quite unclear and I don't now if there is a certain rule within LO. I would expect - that it starts in the current line - that word doesn't wrap after a hyphen So in general: It would be perfect, if LO could follow for example CMOS (Chicago Manual of Style): https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/URLs/faq0008.html I'm not sure about desired behaviour. cc: Design-Team (not sure, if it is a a topic for it, but I also think, some more input is needed)
Consistency with Microsoft is prime but simply introducing their link wrap behavior might be a regression for open documents. So I would introduce an option "[ ] Wrap hyperlinks" (off by default) and when on, the hyperlink starts inline and breaks like MSO does. Not sure if they follow the CMOS. If we want this too, we should use a dropdown "Link wrapping: [Avoid line breaking] [Break at any character] [Break only after http://]. Sounds a bit over-engineered to me and I would do the simple MSO compatibility thing (also since GDocs does something else).
Dear Ahiijny, 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://web.libera.chat/?settings=#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug
No repro 5.4, repro 6.0 and 7.4+. Also for DOCX. And bibisect points to an upgrade, like in bug 133607 (no point to put committer): commit 172bc3741d6b8ba66763592086a7532437649e12 Date: Mon Nov 20 20:07:52 2017 source 9206a08ada00e8762c4a634f242bd566028964bb pre a8687041c46b3fe93a76faa0a4a65e7069ef5e9d Upgrade to ICU 60.1 This would require an analysis and maybe a report to Unicode as in bug 116400.
Eike, I added you here, being related to 'Upgrade to ICU 60.1'.
(In reply to Timur from comment #8) > And bibisect points to an upgrade, like in bug 133607 (no point to put > committer): > commit 172bc3741d6b8ba66763592086a7532437649e12 No such commit.. probably meant was commit 9206a08ada00e8762c4a634f242bd566028964bb instead. That includes a change https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/44871/4/i18npool/source/breakiterator/breakiterator_unicode.cxx#547 on purpose, see its comment there. Make that optional or remove it entirely if you want or fiddle with the nOverlyLong value or test for more than whitespace while finding another break position; IIRC there was a testcase looking for not breaking after a / slash, which apparently exactly changed with TR14 to break after the slash and not before, hence I introduced that non-wrapping code. Personally I think not wrapping URIs at slashes (or at all) if possible is better, but if people want it..
*** Bug 155088 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
In case of ordinary text it's always possible to add a line break but for fields, in particular for the bibliography as reported at bug 155088, it's not possible. Would treat this as a highly important enhancement. MSO does the same as LibreOffice, at least for ordinary paragraphs.