I used the 'import styles from ...' function yesterday for the first time, and I believe it needs improvement. It has a bad workflow. The CURRENT workflow is as follows: Select the feature Select a type of style Decide whether or not you want to overwrite Select a source —> Done, all "available" styles are now imported from that source ("available" depending on OVERWRITE setting) DEFECTS in this workflow: — There is no way to import only a single style or group of styles — There is no way to re-import a style you already have, to synchronize it between documents, without overwriting ALL of the styles your document and source have in common. Overwrite is all-or-nothing. The following is how I propose it SHOULD work: Select the feature Select a type of style Select a source * NEW: Be presented with a list of available styles of that type from that source * NEW: Select the styles you want to import —> Done, all of the styles you wanted and ONLY those styles are imported With this workflow, the overwrite flag is no longer needed and should be removed. If you selected a style for import, obviously you want to overwrite it if it already exists. — There should of course be an IMPORT ALL button. Clicking IMPORT ALL instead of selecting styles from the list would have the same result as selecting OVERWRITE in the current workflow. — The list of available styles should be filterable much as the Style list itself is — all styles, applied styles, standard styles, custom styles etc.
Thank you for the suggestion, Phil. Just for the record (and for easier search), the feature is called "Load Styles from Template" in the English UI. Do you think bug 102002 already covers what you are asking for?
(In reply to Stéphane Guillou (stragu) from comment #1) > Thank you for the suggestion, Phil. > > Just for the record (and for easier search), the feature is called "Load > Styles from Template" in the English UI. > > Do you think bug 102002 already covers what you are asking for? That does seem to pretty much cover it, yes. These should probably be merged.
Great, thank you, Phil. I will mark this as a duplicate then (which gives weight to the other report). If you think there is something missing there, please feel free to add a comment. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 102002 ***