Created attachment 176677 [details] UI color for fields The functions to generate (X)HTML use the background color of the UI defined for fields. But fields (like custom variables, chapter numbers, etc.) should have the same color as the text background of the document. For detailed description please see attached .odt.
This bug seems to be reported in #tdf142726. If so, I'd disagree with the status NOTABUG , because the described workaround is subject to the user profile and not the document itself. Change the application options, then output to HTML, then changing the application option back, would be the workflow. This is not a workaround but a cumbersome solution :-( Also keep in mind that the output adds behaviours of the UI (the colour here) to content. That's a very bad idea, its a bug, IMHO.
I think we have different questions here: Application colours dialog: Is "User interface element" the appropriate name? I think it is not, if this means, that colours are only colours of the UI, but not of the content itself (see attachment 176677 [details]). If colour of field shadings should only affect UI, it's a bug, if not it's the expected behaviour, because you can disable field shading with Strg+F8. So general question is: Should field shadings be part of Html-Export (and PDF or EPUB export)? cc: Design Team to clarifiy these questions.
Yes, I agree that this should be two questions and addressed to the Design Team (UX). IMHO, the current implementation is clearly a bug, as you change the UI settings to get a different result in the exported file. A perfect, at least clear, solution would be to have two configurations: a) User interface element: Field shadings b) "Filter settings for export": Background colour of fields Otherwise either - if the UI is not changed, don't export background colours for fields, . if the UI is changed, move the setting to the "export filter settings" > So general question is: Should field shadings be part of Html-Export (and PDF or EPUB export)? My personal opinion: in general it should not be exported. in a perfect world, it can be configured for each export separately (as described abobe).
> cc: Design Team to clarifiy these questions. As I have filed a couple of bugs related to "Save file" and "Export" and "Send", I'd be happy to participate on a discussion, if any ... It's because some of the reported issues are closely related and/or overlap, but the policy is to file one bug for one issue.
(In reply to achim from comment #4) > > cc: Design Team to clarifiy these questions. > > I'd be happy to participate on a discussion, if any ... Everybody can join meetings of design-team: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design
Created attachment 177304 [details] Screenshot Apparently we show/hide the shading individually. Me uses the Formatted Dummy Text extension for testing [1] and single/multi-character bookmarks are hidden but not the hiding bookmark (...behind [him].) All other (easy to observe) fields have a clear background too. [1] https://extensions.libreoffice.org/en/extensions/show/132
The topic was on the agenda of the design meeting but did receive further input. My take: temporary information such as highlighting fields should not exported as the field becomes a value/text/data point. It works like this in my tests (except for hidden bookmarks).
Let's accept it per the last comment