Currently, in Navigator, you can supposedly navigate your document's Headings, displayed hierarchically. However, if your headings don't have associated outline levels, or if the outline levels aren't the default ones - what you'll see is not the hierarchy of levels. So, the Navigator is actually rather misleading. I believe the Navigator should have two entries: "Outline" and "Headings". * "Outline" will display what today is shown under "Headings": Paragraphs with an outline level set. * "Headings" will display all paragraphs with a style inheriting from Heading (or perhaps - only the styles Heading 1 ... Heading 9)
Disagree. Styles with names starting with "Heading" are not any special, and need no special processing. Only outline level (assignable to any paragraph, or to any paragraph style) makes a paragraph a heading; and this allows users to use their custom paragraph styles instead of the built-in (if so desired); implementing this proposal would decrease flexibility (so users would always see these styles in navigator, even if they don't use these as headings).
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #1) > Styles with names starting with "Heading" are not any special, Well, they're mentioned specifically in the Navigator. > Only outline level (assignable to any paragraph, > or to any paragraph style) makes a paragraph a heading; Outline level is not "Heading level". Something participating in the outline does not have to be a heading and vice-versa. > Implementing this proposal would decrease flexibility (so users would always see these styles in navigator, even if they don't use these as headings). 1. They would only see these styles in Navigator if they chose to look at Headings. Just like now they "always see" frames, or bookmarks, or comments. 2. No flexibility decrease, since users would have the same functionality they have now under "Outline". My suggestion only _adds_ functionality.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #2) > (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #1) > > Styles with names starting with "Heading" are not any special, > > Well, they're mentioned specifically in the Navigator. No. No styles are named in Navigator, only a term "headings", which is related to outline level (by LibreOffice definition); and if somewhere there's a mention of "navigator shows Heading N styles", that is a bug that needs fixing. The "co-incidence" of the style naming only reflects "these styles were created to be used like this, and have all required properties by default". We must *not* hardcode special processing of any styles, unless absolutely unavoidable, ever. > > Only outline level (assignable to any paragraph, > > or to any paragraph style) makes a paragraph a heading; > > Outline level is not "Heading level". Something participating in the outline > does not have to be a heading and vice-versa. Outline level *is* heading level in LibreOffice. Period. > > Implementing this proposal would decrease flexibility (so users would always see these styles in navigator, even if they don't use these as headings). > > 1. They would only see these styles in Navigator if they chose to look at > Headings. Just like now they "always see" frames, or bookmarks, or comments. But they would not be able to avoid the special-casing; and they would be confused by the two obviously different lists, that by default would be identical, and if used chooses to use a different set of paragraphs for outline, they would represent a strange thing (Heading list empty, or lists a different set, compared to user expectations). > 2. No flexibility decrease, since users would have the same functionality > they have now under "Outline". My suggestion only _adds_ functionality. No, it only adds confusion: what is a *practical* use case that this solves, and how could that compare to the inevitable confusion on most users mentioned above?
> Outline level *is* heading level in LibreOffice. Period. Then... * Why can you set the Outline level of arbitrary paragraph styles? * Why do they use different names? Why not "Heading Level"?
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #4) > > Outline level *is* heading level in LibreOffice. Period. > > Then... > > * Why can you set the Outline level of arbitrary paragraph styles? > * Why do they use different names? Why not "Heading Level"? For the same reason why you can apply numbering to any paragraph style, not only those named "List ..." or "Numbering ...". Pre-existing paragraph styles are just defaults. Some people prefer not to use standard styles (e.g., to avoid problems importing others' documents using those standard styles); yet, they use their custom styles to do the same functions. Or they may use localized naming, or some field-specific naming.
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #5) I still can't decide whether what you're saying is just your opinion or accepted LO convention. If it's the former, then I don't agree with this identification; and if it's the latter, then - "Headings" should just be renamed "Outline" or "Outlines", since like you said, it's semantically the same thing, and when you set the value it's called "Outline level". And then nobody would be thrown off by how the Heading N styles don't appear in there.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #6) > (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #5) > > I still can't decide whether what you're saying is just your opinion or > accepted LO convention. It's my opinion (but based on understanding of the inner mechanics). That's why I don't mark it WONTFIX or the like: I only express my ideas, and try to provide rationale for those. > If it's the former, then I don't agree with this identification; Let me repeat my question again (after I provided some rationale): what is the intended *use case* for what you propose; what *real-life problem* should if solve. For now, what you suggest only tries to solve some (possible) terminological confusion, and tries to do that in such a way to introduce much greater confusion. Unless the list of Heading paragraphs could serve some special purpose other than represent what LibreOffice uses for some functions - it is absolutely useless; and for now, LibreOffice only uses outline level of paragraphs to e.g. create ToC. It does *not* use Heading N styles in any special way, so what would the list of those styles (and not others!) in Navigator provide to user? > and if it's the latter, then - "Headings" should just be > renamed "Outline" or "Outlines", since like you said, it's semantically the > same thing, and when you set the value it's called "Outline level". And then > nobody would be thrown off by how the Heading N styles don't appear in there. Maybe - and I suppose that *others* would disagree to you here, for the same reasons they had when renamed Outline Numbering to Chapter Numbering ... :-)
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #7) > Unless the list of Heading paragraphs > could serve some special purpose other than represent what LibreOffice uses > for some functions - it is absolutely useless I meant "Unless the list of Heading paragraphs could serve some special purpose, i.e. represent what LibreOffice uses for some functions - it is absolutely useless".
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #7) > what is the intended *use case* for what you propose; what *real-life problem* > should if solve. For now, what you suggest only tries to solve some > (possible) terminological confusion, and tries to do that in such a way to > introduce much greater confusion. +1
Heiko, we're in the middle of a conversation, so please don't just close this as WONTFIX. Anyway... (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #7) > and for now, LibreOffice only > uses outline level of paragraphs to e.g. create ToC. Also for numbering. But I'll grant you it's not that much. What's really bothering me is seeing non-headings in the tree for headings. > what is > the intended *use case* for what you propose; what *real-life problem* > should if solve. I have a document with heading styles applied, but also with paragraph style which have an outline level. They're not section headings. I don't want to see them in Headings view in navigator. They have an outline level because I want them to participate in numbering. I understand that you're stating, or claiming, that Outline level = Heading level. But as long as different names are used, then they're not. These words are not synonyms. You mentioned an official LO definition - can you link to it? I must say this reminds me of another inconsistent annoyance, which is that in LO, Outlines = Chapters, but the project refuses to name things consistently (bug 141452). Oh yes, I see you mentioned this too. So, with this additional artificial synonym, we now have: Outlines = Headings = Chapters any of those two false equivalencies is annoying, but how can you seriously defend both of them, while keeping the triple-inconsistent names?
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #10) > (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #7) > > and for now, LibreOffice only > > uses outline level of paragraphs to e.g. create ToC. > > Also for numbering. But I'll grant you it's not that much. What's really > bothering me is seeing non-headings in the tree for headings. No one claimed that outline level is only used for ToC, and for nothing else. If you tried to read what I wrote, you could see that "e.g.", which implies "for this, but not only for this", in addition to the contraposition (implied in the whole description, but also explicit in the next sentence discussing that LO does not use heading styles specially). Again: the sentence you incorrectly quotes meant not "outline level is used exclusively for ToC, and for nothing else", but "to build ToC, only outline level is used by default by LO, and nothing else is used to build ToC by default". Sorry for having to clarify this.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #10) > What's really bothering me is seeing non-headings in the tree for headings. > > ... > > I have a document with heading styles applied, but also with paragraph style > which have an outline level. They're not section headings. I don't want to > see them in Headings view in navigator. They have an outline level because I > want them to participate in numbering. The participation of outline levels in numbering means what exactly? I *guess* you mean things like table captions or formula numbering (created using respective numbering fields); and the intended use of that feature is exactly per-chapter numbering - thus the outline level being a synonym of chapter is clear, again. But indeed, one is not forced to use features only as intended - any creative (mis)use is OK. But when one would use outline levels for that, one could limit the outline levels in Navigator to only those levels that are used for chapters. Again: using features outside of their intended use (outline level of paragraphs = (sub)chapter heading) is OK, but not a reason to introduce some changes that make everyone's life (except yours) much harder. Most (MOST) users would be confused (to put it politely) if your proposal is implemented. > I understand that you're stating, or claiming, that Outline level = Heading > level. But as long as different names are used, then they're not. These > words are not synonyms. They are. The "words" in any program are not "words of human language". They are terms, and they mean specific things in the program, and that meaning should not (and cannot) match all the breadth of meaning the human language word bears. The LibreOffice Writer's Outline level is the same as LibreOffice Writer's Heading level. Period. > Outlines = Headings = Chapters > > any of those two false equivalencies is annoying, but how can you seriously > defend both of them, while keeping the triple-inconsistent names? So - your problem in this discussion is just that you believe that you know how we should use words, and if we are allowed or not to use some of them as synonyms. And you know what, you may discuss that (renaming the three to a single term), and it might even make sense - but it is not what this issue is about. Closing WONTFIX again (in fact, it should be INVALID, because WONTFIX means "there's a problem, but resolving it is undesirable", while this is "I do not want to believe that the term means what it really means"). Nothing to discuss here.