Bug 155712 - Footnote numbering should be page-style-specific
Summary: Footnote numbering should be page-style-specific
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Writer (show other bugs)
Version:
(earliest affected)
Inherited From OOo
Hardware: All All
: medium normal
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: Footnote-Endnote-Properties ODF
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2023-06-06 20:21 UTC by Eyal Rozenberg
Modified: 2024-06-06 20:50 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Eyal Rozenberg 2023-06-06 20:21:26 UTC
Footnote autonumbering might need to have different styles in different parts of the document. For example: Latin numerals on LTR/Latin-text pages, Hebrew or Arabic numbers on RTL page with Hebrew/Arabic content. Or perhaps pages in thematically different areas of the document, with one of them befitting a star, dagger, section etc. and another befitting numbers.

So, I suggest this be made a feature of the Page Style, not the document like it is now (at least, UI-wise).
Comment 1 Heiko Tietze 2023-06-07 12:43:04 UTC
Got any backing to the requirement? I mean APA, IEEE, CMOS...
Comment 2 Eyal Rozenberg 2023-06-07 17:18:50 UTC
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #1)
> Got any backing to the requirement? I mean APA, IEEE, CMOS...

No. And isn't CMOS a semiconductor technology name? 8-|  But:

1. If I want to combine two documents into one, I would need to be able to switch footnote autonumbering settings.

2. The Western-and-CTL document example: It doesn't make sense for a document in, say, German and Farsi, to have Latin-letter footnote references in the Farsi parts; nor does it make sense to have Farsi/Arabic-letter footnotes in the German part. So the way things stand now, either I not use alphabet letter at all in a multi-language document, or I need the ability to change autonumbering style.
Comment 3 Heiko Tietze 2023-06-08 08:16:57 UTC
Tried with two documents, the first using numbers for footnotes the second letters. Adding the second into a new document, as you do with master documents, takes the numbering scheme from this document - which is numbers by default.

I see no way to have two schemes living together in harmony.
Comment 4 Dieter 2023-06-08 16:13:45 UTC
Eyal, I can't remember that I've ever seen it in real life. So is it a common layout?
Comment 5 Eyal Rozenberg 2023-06-08 20:52:41 UTC
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #3)
> I see no way to have two schemes living together in harmony.

If this bug is resolved, then they will live together in harmony. Although - one would have to have differently-named page styles for with the different auto-numbering schemes (unless bug 155740 is resolved.)
Comment 6 Dieter 2024-06-06 20:13:38 UTC
Eyal, could you provide a real life example. Taking into account your previous comments I can think about a book with different articles in different languages from different authors. But I don't think, that the editor would put them together into one odt-file.
Comment 7 Eyal Rozenberg 2024-06-06 20:50:50 UTC
(In reply to Dieter from comment #6)
> Eyal, could you provide a real life example.

So, I'll first say I don't believe that's really a valid request. It is established in LibreOffice that footnotes are styled essentially via page styles - spacing, area size, separator line; and the choice of which numbering system to use is - at least partially - a matter of style.

Still, since you've asked - let's just flesh out the example in my opening comment.

Suppose I write a report with some front-matter, e.g. an introduction, a main part and appendices. Each of those may have some footnotes, but I may well choose to have the main-part footnotes be numbered, with numbering not resetting every page; while the introduction may also have a couple of footnotes, which I specifically want _not_ to number, but rather indicate with shapes like †‡◆✱ . At the moment - that's not possible.