Writer's Styles sidebar has a page style named "Landscape", which is also one of the styles in the default-visible list when creating a new document. I claim such having such a page style is nonsensical. So, what is the "Landscape" style supposed to be? Given its name, one assumes it is a sort of a "landscape-layout version" of Default Page Style. However - it is not: It does not inherit the Default Page Style. They could be completely different and incompatible in many respects. Let us remember, that currently, page styles cannot inherit each other! This is bug 41316. If "Landscape" had inherited the default style, I could live with having this style, although it's still a bit questionable to have a separate page style for a single aspect change relative to parent. Such a style would make more sense as a "mixin" or "delta" style, if styles were made composable as suggested in bug 149271.
How do you insert a landscape page in a typical portrait style document? The supposed procedure is Insert > More Breaks > Manual Break... > Page break + Page Style = Landscape. The wish for a hierarchy in page styles makes sense and is requested in bug 41316. But we should remove page styles because of this shortcoming. => NAB
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #0) > Writer's Styles sidebar has a page style named "Landscape", which is also > one of the styles in the default-visible list when creating a new document. > > I claim such having such a page style is nonsensical. Big words. This page style allows users to insert at a place to their like one page (or more pages) landscape oriented (with whatever other properties desired). I trained many people that were very happy to learn how easy and flexible this is. > So, what is the "Landscape" style supposed to be? Given its name, one > assumes it is a sort of a "landscape-layout version" of Default Page Style. > However - it is not: It does not inherit the Default Page Style. They could > be completely different and incompatible in many respects. The goal is that they are different. (Not sure what I should understand that 'incompatible page styles' means, but..)
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #1) > How do you insert a landscape page in a typical portrait style document? The > supposed procedure is Insert > More Breaks > Manual Break... > Page break + > Page Style = Landscape. That's incorrect, because you get a style that, in principle, is completely different from Default PS. The only guarantee (assuming you haven't modified it) is that the page orientation is landscape. What's worse - if you then change the Default PS - the Landscape pages will not change, although you reasonably expect them to. When page styles inherit each other (bug 41316), and Landscape = "Default + orientation:landscape" - then that would be an appropriate procedure. Until that time, the procedure is: 1. Insert > Page Break 2. Set Format > Page Style > Page > Orientation to Landscape and while this is DF - it at least preserves all of the Default Page Style's other properties. > But we should remove page styles because of this shortcoming. Ah, so, that's a different question. If you accept what I said above, let's talk about what should be done in the mean time.
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #2) > (Not sure what I should understand that 'incompatible page styles' means, > but..) To make my argument in the reply to Heiko more concrete: Scenario 1: Suppose I've spent a while tweaking my Default Page Style - working on margins, arranging the background, choosing a gradient transparency, set up a 3-column layout with fancy borders etc. Now, after having created a few pages, I want a landscape-oriented page. Since I'm a good boy who learned he should use styles, I double-click the "Landscape" PS and... what is this? It's the plain old boring white page! That's not what I wanted; I just wanted a landscape page! I will now have to copy style features from Default PS to Landscape :-( Scenario 2: I started out with the plain vanilla Default and Landscape PS'es and used them both. Now I want to, say, make my pages be green. So, I change the Default PS to green, and - darn it, the Landscape pages stay white :-(
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #3) > (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #1) > > How do you insert a landscape page in a typical portrait style document? The > > supposed procedure is Insert > More Breaks > Manual Break... > Page break + > > Page Style = Landscape. > > That's incorrect, because you get a style that, in principle, is completely > different from Default PS. That is completely irrelevant and far sought.
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #2) > (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #0) > > Writer's Styles sidebar has a page style named "Landscape", which is also > > one of the styles in the default-visible list when creating a new document. > > > > I claim such having such a page style is nonsensical. > Big words. > > This page style allows users to insert at a place to their like one page (or > more pages) landscape oriented (with whatever other properties desired). > I trained many people that were very happy to learn how easy and flexible > this is. > > > So, what is the "Landscape" style supposed to be? Given its name, one > > assumes it is a sort of a "landscape-layout version" of Default Page Style. > > However - it is not: It does not inherit the Default Page Style. They could > > be completely different and incompatible in many respects. > The goal is that they are different. > (Not sure what I should understand that 'incompatible page styles' means, > but..) Still resolves in an invalid report...
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #6) > That is completely irrelevant and far sought. Maybe if you never change the Default PS. Otherwise it is a fully relevant and typical usage scenario. > Still resolves in an invalid report... Uh, quite the opposite.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #7) > (In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #6) > > That is completely irrelevant and far sought. > > Maybe if you never change the Default PS. Otherwise it is a fully relevant > and typical usage scenario. Not at all. In many (actually most cases I've ever seen) properties of landscape pages are not tightly bound to these of other pages in the document. > > Still resolves in an invalid report... > > Uh, quite the opposite. I miss any effort to reply to the questions and explanation in my comment 4. So how can you claim these are proving the opposite? This is a waste of time. Just invalid to call the style nonsensical. Rather similar to the left-right page style discussion. Let's focus on where it makes sense: the HMTL page style and maybe the footnote one (didn't look into that yet).
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #8) > Not at all. You can deny it all you want, but it is the common scenari. In many (actually most cases I've ever seen) properties of > landscape pages are not tightly bound to these of other pages in the > document. The most common usage scenario is for "landscape pages" to be in the same sequence of pages as the rest of the document - e.g. same book or stapled-together sequence of pages - but with the contents printed as though the page had been rotated. > I miss any effort to reply to the questions and explanation in my comment 4. > So how can you claim these are proving the opposite? Comment 4 is my comment, continuing a reply to Heiko.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #9) > The most common usage scenario is for "landscape pages" to be in the same Well, we can have a poll to find out which is more. The only use case I've been asked for, and helped people with in trainings, is in reports where (here and there) one landscape page is required. >> I miss any effort to reply to the questions and explanation in my comment 4. >> So how can you claim these are proving the opposite? > > Comment 4 is my comment, continuing a reply to Heiko. Oh.. and you didn't notice that it is comment 2 that you missed?
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #10) > (Not sure what I should understand that 'incompatible page styles' means, Incompatible in any of the properties other than the orientation: Page style, color, direction, numbering scheme etc. > The only use case I've been asked for, and helped people with in trainings, > is in reports where (here and there) one landscape page is required. And in those reports, the landscape page does not have same paper dimensions as the portrait pages? The same margins, or rather margins arranged so as to correspond to the rest of the pages? The same basic text direction (LTR/RTL)? The same page borders or lack thereof? Background color or lack thereof? ... I assume that they do, otherwise such pages would stick out physically or stylistically. > Oh.. and you didn't notice that it is comment 2 that you missed? (In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #2) > > I claim such having such a page style is nonsensical. > Big words. There are two kinds of Page Styles in LibreOffice: Custom, arbitrary ones which one may just apply to any page, and ones which are used for setting the styles of certain structurally-defined pages. With Landscape being defined by default, and given its name, the sense one makes of it is the equivalent of the Default PS, but for pages in landscape rather than portrait orientation. Except - that it isn't that thing. It is merely a style, with no particular relation to the Default PS; which doesn't automatically apply to anything; but merely has the landscape property enabled. That's what's nonsensical. Suppose I defined a style and named it "Roman-Numbered". It would be a style with the page numbering being Roman rather than Western-Arabic by default. It's not a ridiculous thing to define; and we sometimes have documents with different numbering schemes in different sections. But it would be nonsensical to have that as a part of the default list of styles - both because it is not significant enough; and because it is does not inherit the Default PS, i.e. if you change the Default PS it would diverge from it in other aspects than the aspect it's supposed. to > This page style allows users to insert at a place to their like one page (or > more pages) landscape oriented (with whatever other properties desired). Users can also do this by DF'ing their page sequence to be in Landscape orientation. And if they use a custom style, involving DF, for multiple page sequences, or just want to keep things tidy - they can define that custom style. But that does not justify having a Default-PS-dissociated "featured-lifting" style in the basic set of styles offered to all users. > I trained many people that were very happy to learn how easy and flexible > this is. How is it more flexible than DF'ing the orientation or defining a custom style? Also, were they happy to learn that if they want to change, say, the paper dimension or any other number of properties, they must change this style as well? I doubt it...
let me stop wasting my precious time
So, the point I was missing (despite using LO for years) is that there's never any page sequence DF. And if there's no DF, you have to have a different page style for portrait pages and for Landscape pages. So my last comment is literally wrong on that point. ... meaning that this bug is still relevant, although currently, one is forced to have at least two styles in order for some pages to be Portrait and others Landscape. But "Portrait" is no less of a poor choice of extra style. At any rate, the argument for removing this style would be strongly buttressed by a fix for bug 153534, so that we can actually apply DF to page sequences.