The position of line numbering is either Right, Left, Inner or Outer. This is missing Start and End - so that the position changes depending on whether the page is RTL or LTR.
In similar case like bug 148513 we switched (or planned) to just change Left to Start for LTR. So no inflation of options please.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #1) > In similar case like bug 148513 we switched (or planned) to just change Left > to Start for LTR. So no inflation of options please. Left and Right are _not_ Start and End, and no switching-around helps that. I also said as much on bug 148513. To the extent that LN is necessary, all of Start, End, Left and Right are equally significant options.
I think "left" and "right" should be replaced with "start" and "end" and should act relative to writing direction. "left" and "right" makes no sense for traditional east Asian top-to-bottom writing mode, because lines are arranged from right to left, but "start" and "end" makes sense for that writing mode. A larger problem in line numbering dialog are the settings "inner" and "outer". The wording "inner" and "outer" do not describe a physical position but a position relative to the binding edge, and that depends on the writing mode. Currently "inner" and "outer" are exchanged for RTL. And "inner" and "outer" makes no sense for traditional east Asian top-to-bottom writing mode, because the binding edge is neither at start nor at end of a line.
(In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #3) > "left" and "right" makes no sense for traditional east Asian top-to-bottom > writing mode, because lines are arranged from right to left, but "start" and > "end" makes sense for that writing mode. Hmm. Right. But - they still make sense for both LTR, RTL, and mixed RTL-LTR documents. > A larger problem in line numbering dialog are the settings "inner" and > "outer". The wording "inner" and "outer" do not describe a physical position > but a position relative to the binding edge, and that depends on the writing > mode. Also possibly relevant, for sure. > Currently "inner" and "outer" are exchanged for RTL. > And "inner" and "outer" makes no sense for traditional east Asian > top-to-bottom writing mode, because the binding edge is neither at start nor > at end of a line. Well... pages could be bound at the top or the bottom, at least in principle. But AFAICT we don't support this.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #4) > > > Currently "inner" and "outer" are exchanged for RTL. > > And "inner" and "outer" makes no sense for traditional east Asian > > top-to-bottom writing mode, because the binding edge is neither at start nor > > at end of a line. > > Well... pages could be bound at the top or the bottom, at least in > principle. But AFAICT we don't support this. Traditional east Asian top-to-bottom writing mode has page bound on the right hand side, see section 2.2.3 in https://www.w3.org/2007/02/japanese-layout/docs/aligned/japanese-layout-requirements-en.html
(In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #5) > Traditional east Asian top-to-bottom writing mode has page bound on the > right hand side, see section 2.2.3 in > https://www.w3.org/2007/02/japanese-layout/docs/aligned/japanese-layout- > requirements-en.html Ok, but - not all printed items follow the same binding style. Still, this is a minor point, so never mind.
So let's first change Left/Right to Start/End.