In documents with numbered headings, which have separators after the number, e.g.
A. My first heading
B. My second heading
when you want to refer to one of the headings using the "Number", the reference reads "A." rather than "A". But one does not necessarily want to include the separator in the reference! That's a stylistic choice.
Now, LO should support one of the following:
1. Have a checkbox for whether to include the separator before the first number level, and another checkbox for whether to include the separator after the last level
2. Have a checkbox for whether to include both the separator before the first number level the separator after the last level
3 Split the 'Number' reference option into "Number with first prefix and last suffix" and "Number without first prefix and last suffix" (perhaps using shorter names for these options)
I like option (1.) personally.
Note that, in MS Word, IIANM, you can definitely refer to heading numbers using just the number without the last prefix, i.e. the default is unlike in LO. And then you can add a prefix and suffix of your own, to the field, which gives you the essentially the same effect as the LO default.
I confirm the described behaviour, but I don't think it's a bug, but an enhancement request
cc: Design-Team for further input and decision
"Number" will show A., "Chapter" just A, and "Referenced Text" the heading text.
See also https://help.libreoffice.org/7.3/en-US/text/swriter/01/04090002.html
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #2)
> "Number" will show A., "Chapter" just A, and "Referenced Text" the heading
Hmm. Weird. Shouldn't that be the other way around? I mean, let's suppose the numbering uses decimal digits and the separator is "@". "123" is a number; "123@" is not a number.
Also, there's another point. When we import an MS-Word document, cross-references to numbered paragraphs, which in the original showed the number without the separator, now show the number with the separator.
Heiko, should I open separate bugs about these two issues? Reopen this one? Something else?
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #3)
> (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #2)
> > "Number" will show A., "Chapter" just A...
> Shouldn't that be the other way around?
Regina, any clarification possible from the specs? Imagine Eyal's argument is that we pick A..Z, 1..999 etc. in the Chapter Numbering dialog at "Number", and the chapter is generated by number + separator. Weak argument, IMO.
> When we import an MS-Word document,
> cross-references to numbered paragraphs, which in the original showed the
> number without the separator, now show the number with the separator.
If you think we have a compatibility or roundtrip issue please file a ticket. If it was somehow different before (the "now" sounds like this) please add the keyword regression.
If this is about terminology and MSO calls something differently please share a screenshot here.
> Reopen this one?
Not yet. Exchanging number/chapter or renaming would be at best just effort for the l10n team but could also be confusing if users are familiar with the current terminology.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #4)
> Regina, any clarification possible from the specs?
I'll also add that the "other way around" is still kind of confusing. Perhaps the best would be: "full number" and "number without final separator" or something like that.
Oh, wait, actually, there's another issue... remember the discussion in 142555? If Chapter and Number are supposed to do what you've described here, does that invalidate our discussion there? And indicate that bug should be closed as INVALID?
> > When we import an MS-Word document,
> > cross-references to numbered paragraphs, which in the original showed the
> > number without the separator, now show the number with the separator.
> If you think we have a compatibility or roundtrip issue please file a
Ah, but here's the thing: If we've inappropriately switched up "number" with "chapter", and switch it back, then the incompatibility might go away.
> If it was somehow different before (the "now" sounds like this)
> please add the keyword regression.
I don't know that this changed recently, but TBH I haven't checked with older versions.
> If this is about terminology and MSO calls something differently please
> share a screenshot here.
It doesn't really matter what it's called; the point is that a cross-ref which, reads as "123" in MS-Word, reads aws "123." when imported into LO.
So, I was re-reading 142555. Indeed, Number and Chapter are "laden" with two conflicting semantic distinctions:
"Number of the chapter the target is in" vs "The target's number"
"A number with the final separator" vs "A number without the final separator"
That's... not good. Both distinctions are necessary.
For this reason, I'm reopening this bug for now. The "with/without final separator" applies to multiple "refer using" listbox entries, so it can't be represented using an extra entry in the listbox, but needs its own toggle.
I don't think we get a final clarification by renaming. To understand the idea behind "full number" and "number without final separator" you need to know this discussion. Ultimately it's a piece of cake to pick the right option by trial and error. And I would make sure that the documentation does the explanation. However, not against a careful renaming. So far not much interest in this topic.
For bug 142555 I believe we have to resolve it as WF. Both chapter and number are needed.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #7)
First, my apologies for not being able to make the design meeting yesterday, for the agenda item regarding this issue. Try as I might, I have many things going on in my life, and that's besides my day job, so... even if I know a meeting is upcoming I can usually not make it.
Anyway, I agree that
> I don't think we get a final clarification by renaming.
But that point is moot, because the "Number" and "Chapter" entries in the refer-by dialog now have two differences. But none of the distinctions between the two are properly served by the current names. And again, that's not the point of this bug.
> To understand the
> idea behind "full number" and "number without final separator" you need to
> know this discussion. Ultimately it's a piece of cake to pick the right
> option by trial and error.
Ah, no. It is _impossible_ to pick the right option, because once there are two semantic differences between the items, LO is only offering two of the four possible options:
* Containing header ("chapter") number, with final separator
* Containing header ("chapter") number, without final separator
* Paragraph's number, with final separator
* Paragraph's number, without final separator
> For bug 142555 I believe we have to resolve it as WF. Both chapter and
> number are needed.
And so are with and without final separator options.
But like I've already written - even that is not enough. Because the with/without final separator is necessary also for "Number (no context)" and "Number (full context)". Which is why a toggle, separate from the list box, is necessary.
Will ask here first, can make new ticket if appropriate.
The issue that motivates this comment is that "Chapter" is clearly a poor label in the cross-reference dialog because this option can be used with numbered lists (which are not "chapters"), as well as numbered headings (which are not always chapters).
But before proposing to find another label, let me ask if the "Chapter" option is needed.
Comment 7 here concludes that "Chapter" and "Number" are needed, but I could not find any discussion of "Chapter" vs. "Number (no context)"
The current behavior (22.214.171.124) is that Chapter provides only the number of the numbered item, while "Number (no context)" also includes the "Before" and "After" separators.
Naively, I would think (from the label) that "Number (no context)" would not include the separators, and I understand that the purpose of this (and other tickets bug 121465, bug 149653) are to address that issue.
If the idea/plan is that "Number (no context)" will/should behave like "Chapter" does at present, then I would propose to drop "Chapter", and then there is no need to find another label.
Chapter -> "Number (no context)"
"Number (no context)" -> "Number (with separators)"
Note that this relabeling does not change any functionality, just gives the user a better indication of what might happen with these options.
(NB. comment 8 only refers to "final separator" (which I assume is being set with "After"), but "Before" will also appear).
(In reply to sdc.blanco from comment #9)
> Will ask here first, can make new ticket if appropriate.
Please make that a separate ticket, this is only about the dot or other separator after the number.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #10)
> Please make that a separate ticket,
Eyal, wouldn't you say this is a duplicate of what is proposed in bug 149635?
(In reply to Stéphane Guillou (stragu) from comment #12)
> Eyal, wouldn't you say this is a duplicate of what is proposed in bug 149635?
Actually, I would say that it's the other way around, because this bug is more general about the option space: Authors _don't_ want suppression _always_ - different authors want suppression or no-suppression, possibly not even consistently over multiple references.
I'll comment on that bug as well.