Writer's Styles sidebar has two page styles named "Right Page" and "Left Page", which are also one of the styles in the default-visible list when creating a new document. A "Right Page" (resp. "Left Page") can mean any number of things: * A page with an RTL (resp. LTR) default for paragraph styles * A page with right-aligned (resp. left-aligned) text by default * A page to the right (resp. left) of the spine in a book-like document * A page with larger margin on the right (resp. left) In fact, there are even more notions of what such a page might be (e.g. it was suggested to me that a right page is odd-numbered, and an even page is even-numbered; or was it the other way around?) At any rate, looking at their actual definitions - these two alternate, i.e. the style for a page following a left page is a right page. These styles don't inherit the default page style, nor any other common styles - as page style inheritance is not yet supported (that is bug 41316). So, they are not versions of the Default Page Style, with one being "left" and the other being "right", whatever that means. Remember, that the mechanism for distinguishing features of the page between pages to the left-of-spine or right-of-spine is supposed to be part of a single page style; and indeed, it kind of is: Within the Page Style dialog, under the Page tab, we have a "Page layout" option, which has a "Right and Left" option (also poorly named). When you choose it, you can define a gutter, which alternates sides when considering the page itself, but is always next to the spine when considering the orientation of pages in 3D-space. To the extent that we want to differentiate more left-of-spine/right-of-spine behavior, we should do that in the dialog itself. And if we just want to allow arbitrary changes alternating between consecutive pages, then - we should name such a pair of styles differently (not "Left" and "Right"), and not have them as a one of the default choices. In fact, we should probably not bother, since interested users can use the "Next Style" mechanism to create such pairs themselves. As an RTL user and RTL QA contributor, I assure you that this two-page-style mechanism is _not_ in wide use by RTL document authors, and my guess is that it is hardly ever used by anyone.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 140655 ***
The bug is probably invalid, and certainly not a dupe of this one. But now that I've noticed it (it wasn't marked as blocking RTL-CTL), I'll comment there soon.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #2) Apparently, I already _have_ commented there before, to oppose :-(
Invalid, if you want, in terms of removing the PgS but a duplicate of rename left/right to even/odd.
Eyal, your description of this 'issue' says a lot about what you do not like or do not understand, but it does not make clear why these page styles do not work for the job and make it easy to create alternate pages. I accept if you say that it is of no use for RTL users. Or maybe there are things that need to be improved to make it fit better for RTL use too?
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #4) > Invalid, if you want, in terms of removing the PgS but a duplicate of rename > left/right to even/odd. Why replace one wrong name with another wrong name? These are not the styles of odd and even pages, nor can you make them be that. Just drop these two styles, they are not, and should not, be used for what you seem to think people would use them for.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #6) > Just drop these (two) styles... I don't see support for your idea.
As mention in https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153534#c16, I can configure a heading paragraph style at the beginning of a chapter or section to insert a page break with a particular page style before the heading. If I tell it to insert a page with the Right page style, then I can set that page style to not include a header. I can also set the Right page style to use my normal page style as the next page, which does have headings on it. Please provide a document demonstrating an alternative for this or please provide a document that demonstrates how this procedure will fail to function properly.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #7) > (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #6) > > Just drop these (two) styles... > I don't see support for your idea. Bug reports don't need "support". You don't see a refutation of my claims. These are not, and can't be, the styles of "Right Page"'s or "Left Page"'s, whatever that means; so they must be removed. Now, Regina suggested in bug 140655 that we should have a pair an "Odd Page" and "Even Page" styles. That is a _different_ issue, and that's the one which needs support. But - that would also not be relevant, since that is impossible. these cannot be the styles of Odd Pages and Even pages, as nothing guarantees they will apply to Odd- and Even-numbered pages respectively. Note that this is far beyond, say, the Landscape style, which one has to actively undermine in order for it to be non-Landscape. Here, it's enough to apply the "Odd Page" style to a non-odd page, or make an odd page non-odd by extending a previous page sequence with a page break anywhere in between, to get to a situation where each of these two styles applies to some odd pages as well as some even pages. It is just a non-serious attempt to salvage a wrong idea someone had at some point about adding the "Right Page" and "Left Page" styles. Why are you so attached to these styles?
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #9) > Bug reports don't need "support". You don't see a refutation of my claims. I hereby explicitly refute your claim as per my use case described in comment #8. > These are not, and can't be, the styles of "Right Page"'s or "Left Page"'s, > whatever that means; so they must be removed. Then what would you call them given my use case? Maybe just call them Right-side Only and Left-side Only pages, although the configuration options seem to make plain what is meant. > Note that this is far beyond, say, the Landscape style, which one has to > actively undermine in order for it to be non-Landscape. Here, it's enough to > apply the "Odd Page" style to a non-odd page, or make an odd page non-odd by > extending a previous page sequence with a page break anywhere in between, to > get to a situation where each of these two styles applies to some odd pages > as well as some even pages. Are you saying that the page numbers will be incorrect if you directly insert a page break instead of allowing a heading style to insert a page break and a Right Only or Left Only page? Even if that were the case, please provide a document that demonstrates the problem (though a direct page insert would be considered a poor practice). I have yet to see this issue in a real-life document, though I use these styles frequently. > It is just a non-serious attempt to salvage a wrong idea someone had at some > point about adding the "Right Page" and "Left Page" styles. Why are you so > attached to these styles? Maybe because no viable, better alternative to my real-life use case has yet been provided.
(In reply to David from comment #10) > I hereby explicitly refute your claim as per my use case described in > comment #8. I was answering Heiko... The use case you described in that comment has nothing to do with a distinction between "Left" and "Right" pages, nor between "Odd" and "Even" pages; nor would you use the "Left Page" and "Right Page" styles for that case - you would use a page style appropriate for the first page of a chapter. I am not against this being possible! I am against the definition of the two "Left Page" and "Right Page" styles. > > These are not, and can't be, the styles of "Right Page"'s or "Left Page"'s, > > whatever that means; so they must be removed. > Then what would you call them given my use case? I would call them styles you would not use for your use case. I mean, I can take the "HTML" page style and use that for the first page of my chapter, too; it's an arbitrary choice. > Maybe because no viable, better alternative to my real-life use case has yet > been provided. Like I said above - create a new custom page style, say "Chapter Title"; set its Next Style to Default Page Style (or whatever page style you want to use for that chapter), and you're all set.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #11) > (In reply to David from comment #10) > The use case you described in that comment has nothing to do with a > distinction between "Left" and "Right" pages, nor between "Odd" and "Even" > pages; nor would you use the "Left Page" and "Right Page" styles for that > case - you would use a page style appropriate for the first page of a > chapter. I am not against this being possible! I am against the definition > of the two "Left Page" and "Right Page" styles. My use case has everything to do with "Left Page" and "Right Page" styles. I want the new chapter or section to start specifically on the right side. > I would call them styles you would not use for your use case. I mean, I can > take the "HTML" page style and use that for the first page of my chapter, > too; it's an arbitrary choice. Yes you can, but since the "Right Page" style already has the Page layout option set to "Right only," why would I want to go ahead and configure another style for the same option when that one's already set to correctly start the new section or chapter on only the right page by default? > > Maybe because no viable, better alternative to my real-life use case has yet > > been provided. > > Like I said above - create a new custom page style, say "Chapter Title"; set > its Next Style to Default Page Style (or whatever page style you want to use > for that chapter), and you're all set. Yes, after I set the page layout to "Right only." So why should I have to set the options for another style to be what I want when the styles there already have the option set? What you just suggested will not put my new page on the right side by default, with a blank page on the left side if necessary, and that is exactly what I want. And I don't have a problem with the page numbers being correct either.
(In reply to David from comment #12) > My use case has everything to do with "Left Page" and "Right Page" styles. I > want the new chapter or section to start specifically on the right side. Do you mean the right side of the gutter? Well, if you only consider intra-page settings, and ignore all other pages, then, yes, I suppose you can use Right Page that way. However - if you want your page to be on the right side of the gutter, with all pages consistenly placed relative to the gutter (i.e. right-of-gutter always following left-of-gutter and vice verse) - then this won't work. Because if your previous page is right-of-gutter, your page break will result in another right-of-gutter page. I'll add a couple of attachments to illustrate.
Created attachment 193766 [details] David's use case - ODT The document is self-describing. I've colored the paragraph backgrounds and page backgrounds of LP and RP, and inserted a Page Break as David suggested. The result is two right pages one after another.
Created attachment 193767 [details] David's use case - PDF ... and when we export attachment 193766 [details] to PDF, we indeed get a 3-page PDF with green, red, red colors.
Created attachment 193768 [details] revised use case PDF (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #14) > I've colored the paragraph backgrounds and page backgrounds of LP and RP, > and inserted a Page Break as David suggested. The result is two right pages > one after another. The document works perfectly as designed IF the option for "Export automatically inserted blank pages" is enabled when exporting as a PDF. I revised the document to add page number fields and attached the re-exported PDF. The automatically inserted blank pages can also be seen in Writer if book view is enabled.
Created attachment 193769 [details] Sample chapter break using the right page style A sample document with a title page and chapter headings has been attached. The chapters begin on a right-side page style, which is followed by the default page style that has the header enabled. Page breaks are automatically inserted by the style, except for the manual page break used to give a two-page chapter.
(In reply to David from comment #16) > The document works perfectly as designed I don't know what you mean by "as designed", but the PDF with "export automatically-inserted blank page" has different problems: 1. The "blank pages" the PDF has have neither the Left Page nor the Right Page style. In particular, they ignore the page area color and the header settings; and some of the blank pages (not all of them) ignore the page border setting. Haven't tested other features. 2. The extra pages are not visible while editing the document. 3. A blank page is added before the first page, even though there was no request to insert such a blank page. I should probably also mention that, by default, both "Left Page" and "Right Page" have the gutter on the left side of the page (i.e. Left rather than Top and "on right side of page" deselected). I don't know if this is intentional or not.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #18) > 1. The "blank pages" the PDF has have neither the Left Page nor the Right > Page style. Of course not. If you have a page style set to only display on a right page, then it is going to automatically insert a blank page if needed. From the documentation: "Only right The current page style shows only odd (right) pages. Even pages are shown as blank pages. Only left The current page style shows only even (left) pages. Odd pages are shown as blank pages." https://help.libreoffice.org/24.2/en-US/text/shared/01/05040200.html?&DbPAR=SHARED&System=WIN In particular, they ignore the page area color and the header > settings; and some of the blank pages (not all of them) ignore the page > border setting. Haven't tested other features. It functions exactly as I need it to function and exactly as it was told to function. If you don't want an automatically inserted blank page, then don't use a style that sets Right Only or Left Only, but that doesn't mean that for other people it's nonsensical. > 2. The extra pages are not visible while editing the document. As I said before, they are if you enable book view. But as the data is changed, the page requirements might also change. It may be a distraction if the blank pages continually appear and disappear while you're editing. But it is a nice feature that LibreOffice will take care of such requirements when it publishes the finished document. > 3. A blank page is added before the first page, even though there was no > request to insert such a blank page. By requesting a Left Only page, you just defined that you wanted that first page to be on the left side. Therefore in order to accommodate your request it will insert a blank page as per the documentation.
(In reply to David from comment #19) > (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #18) > > 1. The "blank pages" the PDF has have neither the Left Page nor the Right > > Page style. > Of course not. If you have a page style set to only display on a right page, > then it is going to automatically insert a blank page if needed. ... making this kind of behavior somewhat hackish and not something one can properly control, at least the way it's implemented right now. I realize this may be useful to you, but it should not be one of the set of pre-defined page styles; you would still be able to create such a pair of styles yourself, if you like them. > From the documentation: > "Only right > The current page style shows only odd (right) pages. Even pages are shown as > blank pages. That's the non-sensical part, in two senses: * The concept of a "Right Page" (and "Left Page") is not well-defined, as I've explained in the opening comment. * Given almost any definition I can think of for a "right page" or a "left page" - it is independent of whether the page is odd or even. > It functions exactly as I need it to function and exactly as it was told to > function. If you don't want an automatically inserted blank page, then don't > use a style that sets Right Only or Left Only, but that doesn't mean that > for other people it's nonsensical. I understand that's exactly what you need. But it's still nonsensical pair of terms, and of styles, to have in the default set. I've never met seen a document, or met someone who writes documents, with this particular behavior: Pages with a gutter on the same side on all pages, but alternating page styles (not to mention the blank page behavior). > As I said before, they are if you enable book view. There is no "book view" when editing a document, AFAIK. Moreover, the "Right Page" and "Left Page" both have a gutter on the same side always, so they disagree with a "book view" apriori. > > 3. A blank page is added before the first page, even though there was no > > request to insert such a blank page. > By requesting a Left Only page, you just defined that you wanted that first > page to be on the left side. On the left side of _what_? > Therefore in order to accommodate your request > it will insert a blank page as per the documentation. "as per the documentation" - the documentation documents the behavior, it's not a justification for anything. Anyway, what request? I did not request to have a page before my first page. I "requested" for my first page to be a Left Page, and LibreOffice refused this "request" - making the _second_ page a Left Page, with my first page being blank with part (but not all) of the styling of a Right Page.
Created attachment 193776 [details] Attachment 193766 [details] + page borders, headers - ODT Exemplifying the partial styling of inserted pages (a PDF to follow).
Created attachment 193777 [details] Attachment 193766 [details] + page borders, headers - PDF The result of a PDF export of attachment 193776 [details], with "Export automatically inserted blank pages" enabled. Note the styling of the 1st and 4th pages in the PDF - these are the inserted pages: * Both have white background (i.e. unlike a Left Page or Right Page would) * Page 1 has green border like a Right Page * Page 4 has no green border (like a Right Page would) nor a red border (like a Left Page would) * Both have no header - neither the header for Right Page's nor the header for Left Page's
Thanks David and Eyal for the various tests. These show that the behavior is as expected and serves the use case that various people mention as relevant for them (and that seems to be in line with the behavior as explained in the documentation). Especially in such a situation it seems not appropriate to label someone's use case as something as irrelevant or alike. Apart from that maybe some details are not perfect and (e.g. green border on page 1 in last example's export; in the version where I test it, print preview doesn't show inserted blank pages while the option is set to do so; ...) there is no ground for calling these page styles 'nonsensical'. So I must close as invalid. Reports for improving details appreciated.
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #23) > Thanks David and Eyal for the various tests. > These show that the behavior is as expected What are you talking about, Cor? The expectation is not even defined, so the behavior cannot be as expected. > and serves the use case that > various people mention as relevant for them What use case is that? This gaslighting is quite unbecoming.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #24) > What use case is that? If you don't even notice that people describe use cases, how can we then help?
(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #25) > If you don't even notice that people describe use cases, how can we then > help? My point is, that when one actually spells out a supposed use case for these styles - either the use case is reasonable/common, but then - the pair of styles don't fit the use case on a closer inspection; or the use case is convoluted and contrived, in which case it does not merit to have a pair of styles pre-defined for it. With David's use case, it has been the second option: As we examined the behavior of the two page styles, and David verified that this behavior is his use case (well, I'll take him at his word anyway) - it became clear it is a niche and rather weird use case, with inconsistently-styled blank-page inserts, sometimes without the user having requested them. The contrivance is more obvious when one considers RTL documents, or documents which are partly RTL and partly LTR, where some simplifying assumptions cannot be made. Realizing this fact made Regina and Heiko suggest "salvaging" this pair of styles as "odd" and "even" - but here too: If one spells out that use case fully, one reaches the same dichotomy.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #26) > (In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #25) > > If you don't even notice that people describe use cases, how can we then > > help? > > My point is, that when one actually spells out a supposed use case for these speaking of a 'supposed use case' looks like a nasty habit of making other people's experiences ridiculous or fake. I strongly object that behavior. > styles - either the use case is reasonable/common, but then - the pair of > styles don't fit the use case on a closer inspection; or the use case is > convoluted and contrived, in which case it does not merit to have a pair of > styles pre-defined for it. I can't help that for you the altering of left and right pages is not a clear use case. But it is. And the option (offered in the UI) to insert blank pages on print/expert, is just an extra support to get the desired result. Looking at a simple constructed 3 page document to 'prove' that it is weird, is not a serious use case. > With David's use case, it has been the second option: As we examined the > behavior of the two page styles, and David verified that this behavior is > his use case (well, I'll take him at his word anyway) - it became clear it > is a niche and rather weird use case, with inconsistently-styled blank-page > inserts, sometimes without the user having requested them. David showed that it works as designed. You make that ridiculous by creating a green border on one special page and complaining that inserted blank pages are missing header/footer information - which to me is just expected. > The contrivance is more obvious when one considers RTL documents, or > documents which are partly RTL and partly LTR, where some simplifying > assumptions cannot be made. Realizing this fact made Regina and Heiko > suggest "salvaging" this pair of styles as "odd" and "even" - but here too: > If one spells out that use case fully, one reaches the same dichotomy. So the only issue that there seems to be, but it is one that I cannot oversee - is that it (maybe) not serves the RTL use case. Please do make a clear report with examples that also people not used to RTL can understand. Thanks, Cor
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #26) > My point is, that when one actually spells out a supposed use case for these > styles - either the use case is reasonable/common, but then - the pair of > styles don't fit the use case on a closer inspection; or the use case is > convoluted and contrived, in which case it does not merit to have a pair of > styles pre-defined for it. The first problem you're having is that you consider this a pair that is necessarily designed to be used together in the same document. I don't recall anywhere in the documentation that states that they are a pair that MUST be used together or that this is even a suggested best practice. But one case that I can think of where a person might want to use both the Left Page and Right Page styles together would maybe be in an art book or some other book where there might be a picture or a diagram on the left-hand page and a one page description or explanation on the right-hand page. The author would likely want these to be viewed together on opposing pages and not have one item on the back side of the page and the other on the front side. But otherwise, to accommodate multiple pages of text, it would probably be best to use mirrored pages after the initial page. > With David's use case, it has been the second option: As we examined the > behavior of the two page styles, and David verified that this behavior is > his use case (well, I'll take him at his word anyway) - it became clear it > is a niche and rather weird use case, with inconsistently-styled blank-page > inserts, sometimes without the user having requested them. Niche? It is hardly an unheard of practice to have chapters begin on the right-hand side of an open book, but how often do you find books that have the title page, the first chapter, or an appendix or index or other types of sections begin on the left-hand page? And if the book is for a RTL language that opens a book in the opposite direction, then simply specify that the heading style is to use a page style that has the "Left Only" option set rather than the "Right Only" setting. > The contrivance is more obvious when one considers RTL documents, or > documents which are partly RTL and partly LTR, where some simplifying > assumptions cannot be made. Realizing this fact made Regina and Heiko > suggest "salvaging" this pair of styles as "odd" and "even" - but here too: > If one spells out that use case fully, one reaches the same dichotomy. I have yet to see you give an example of a document where setting a page to be left or right only does not do exactly that. When you said in your document, "Set the first page style to Left Page," you specifically told it at that point (assuming that the Page layout setting for the page style was not changed) that the page was only supposed to display on the left-hand side of the book. Therefore in order to comply with your request it will put in a blank page as a filler if necessary, even if it is the first page of the document but is defined as a Left Only page according to the page style that you gave it. It does not assume something other than what you specifically told it to do. (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #18) > 1. The "blank pages" the PDF has have neither the Left Page nor the Right > Page style. In particular, they ignore the page area color and the header > settings; and some of the blank pages (not all of them) ignore the page > border setting. A blank page means a BLANK page, not a page merely void of body text but containing other components. It is simply a filler so that the document gets printed properly. If that's not what you want, then don't use a page style that has the Right Only or Left Only option set. > There is no "book view" when editing a document, AFAIK. Try checking the documentation or the little page icons in the status bar.
(In reply to David from comment #28) > The first problem you're having is that you consider this a pair that is > necessarily designed to be used together in the same document. David, the Left Page style has Right Page as its "Next Style" (i.e. style of next page), and the Right Page style has Left Page as its "Next Style". So, whenever you pass the page boundary in a Left Page, the page switches to Right Page, and vice-versa. i.e. the two styles are definitely an inseparable pair (expect if one uses page breaks everywhere). If you'll look at Regina's suggestion in bug 140655, she considers these pages to be "odd page" and "even page", which is just as tight of a relation. > I don't > recall anywhere in the documentation that states that they are a pair that > MUST be used together or that this is even a suggested best practice. I guess that's a documentation bug. Remember that, in LO, the documentation is never something binding. The ODF spec is binding for the file format; documentation is a convenience for users, not something which the UI is written to match. In all cases I'm aware of anyway. > > There is no "book view" when editing a document, AFAIK. > Try checking the documentation or the little page icons in the status bar. Hmm, you're quite right. Sorry about that. I'll have a look and re-evaluate what I said. And then I'll reply to the remainder of your comment. Weird that these modes aren't in the View menu.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #29) > David, the Left Page style has Right Page as its "Next Style" (i.e. style of > next page), and the Right Page style has Left Page as its "Next Style". So, > whenever you pass the page boundary in a Left Page, the page switches to > Right Page, and vice-versa. i.e. the two styles are definitely an > inseparable pair (expect if one uses page breaks everywhere). Then change it to use the Default Page Style as the next style if you need it to fit a greater number of use cases. I don't consider doing so as "weird" or "contrived" or somehow breaking a binding ODF spec.
(In reply to David from comment #30) > Then change it to use the Default Page Style as the next style if you need > it to fit a greater number of use cases. I don't consider doing so as > "weird" or "contrived" or somehow breaking a binding ODF spec. We can always create custom styles and use them - and that's perfectly fine. We can also take one of the styles defined by default and tweak it somewhat to fit our needs, which is also perfectly fine (and still "counts" IMNSHO as using that style). But if you take a style defined by default, which is not inherently tied to some structural aspect of the document, and make a fundamental change to it - like severing the alternation with its companion style - then you've made it into something else. Which is also fine, except that you shouldn't use the style defined by default, you should use a different name for it. And this change is not a use case of the original style, but of a fundamentally different style.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #29) > If you'll look at Regina's suggestion in bug 140655, she considers these > pages to be "odd page" and "even page", which is just as tight of a relation. Right/Left correlates to Odd/Even page numbers in books written in English. If another language opens and reads their books from the opposite direction and the first left hand page is considered to be page 1, then it would be the Left/Right order of pages that would would correlate to Odd/Even pages. I am not familiar with books in RTL languages, but if that is the case, I would consider Right/Left to be terms that would more broadly cover both scenarios better than trying to use Even/Odd.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #31) > But if you take a style defined by default, which is not inherently tied to > some structural aspect of the document, and make a fundamental change to it > - like severing the alternation with its companion style - then you've made > it into something else. Which is also fine, except that you shouldn't use > the style defined by default, you should use a different name for it. And > this change is not a use case of the original style, but of a fundamentally > different style. If the developers consider changing the "Next style" of a style to be a fundamentally different style and that this somehow totally changes some sort of binding spec, then fine. I regularly change the next style for paragraph and page styles. A style that dictates that a page will only appear on the right-hand side or the left-hand side of a book still has a name that gives me a hint of what it does if it's named a Right/Left page, even if the next style used has been changed from the default.
(In reply to David from comment #33) > If the developers consider changing the "Next style" of a style to be a > fundamentally different style and that this somehow totally changes some > sort of binding spec, then fine. That would make these styles completely different than what they are now: An alternating pair. If you, say, change the orientation of the landscape PS - it won't be the landscape style anymore. So, you believe that the default list of styles could, or should, contain one (or two?) style(s) which is like the Left Page / Right Page style right now, but non-alternating. That's a suggestion that merits discussion (and then I would challenge you to choose an appropriate name, to establish a measure of popularity of the use case etc). Regina believes, that the default list of styles should, contain a pair of styles with the same definitions as Left Page / Right Page right now, but which don't serve as their name suggests - she would call them "odd" and "even". That contradicts what you're asking for (and has its own issues which I mentioned both here and in 140655). But we should not keep style X when (essentially) nobody wants X as is, and different people think contradictory modifications X' and X'' are useful. > The automatically inserted blank pages can also be seen in Writer if book view is enabled Indeed they are, and I again apologize for missing that. FYI, I've filed bug 160785 (a dupe of 150839) regarding increasing their visibility by adding the multipage mode choosers to the View menu. However - the problems I described are partially-evident there as they are in print preview book mode: * Blank page insertions are not what the user asked for. They may want the insertions, or may want them not to appear. (For the first page specifically, see bug 117231). * The blank pages aren't styled at all. * (not visible in book view) the exported PDF may get the page border frame of the subsequent page style; filed this as bug 160809. * The gutter of both Right Page and Left Page is on the same side of the page - the left side. You see this if you set a non-zero gutter width. But most importantly - the simplest use case which most users would be interested would be a single page style with the "Mirrored" layout option, and an inside non-zero-space gutter (which they could then play with). That too could be a possible alternative to the Left Page / Right Page pair, to have available by default. Perhaps we could call it "Book Page with Gutter" or just "Book Page".
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #34) > * Blank page insertions are not what the user asked for. They may want the > insertions, or may want them not to appear. (For the first page > specifically, see bug 117231). > * The blank pages aren't styled at all. They may not be what the user "thinks" they asked for, but they are exactly what the user told the program to create if they asked for a Right Only or a Left Only page and a filler page needs to be inserted to make that request happen. If you don't like the word "blank", then use the other term "empty", which the documentation also uses for these pages: https://help.libreoffice.org/24.2/en-US/text/swriter/guide/even_odd_sdw.html?&DbPAR=SHARED&System=WIN
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #34) > But most importantly - the simplest use case which most users would be > interested would be a single page style with the "Mirrored" layout option, > and an inside non-zero-space gutter (which they could then play with). That > too could be a possible alternative to the Left Page / Right Page pair, to > have available by default. Perhaps we could call it "Book Page with Gutter" > or just "Book Page". And how do you propose to remove headers, for instance, on just the first page?
(In reply to David from comment #36) > And how do you propose to remove headers, for instance, on just the first > page? On the menus, go to: Format > Page Style... > Header and deselect "Same header of first page". You can also get different headers or alterating pages of the same sequence.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #37) > (In reply to David from comment #36) > > And how do you propose to remove headers, for instance, on just the first > > page? > > On the menus, go to: Format > Page Style... > Header > > and deselect "Same header of first page". You can also get different headers > or alterating pages of the same sequence. Let me rephrase this question. You proposed a "single page style with the "Mirrored" layout option." Let us suppose now that a user has a document that maybe for the first page of each chapter or a section such as an appendix they wish not to have an element, such as the header, on that initial page. It is unknown how many pages might be in the rest of the chapter or appendix. But let's assume there will probably be many pages. The attachment I already gave can be used for a simple example (https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=193769). Without using any direct formatting inserts (since the user shouldn't be expected to have to do/undo direct inserts if the preceding page count changes), how can a document be configured using only styles so that only the initial page (i.e., not alternating pages) of a chapter or section does not have a header?
(In reply to David from comment #36) > And how do you propose to remove headers, for instance, on just the first > page? At the same dialog, there is also an option for having a different header on the first page (which could be empty). (In reply to David from comment #38) > how can a document be configured using only styles so that only the > initial page (i.e., not alternating pages) of a chapter or section does > not have a header? I suggest you add a "Book Chapter First Page" style, whose Next Style is the "Book Page" I suggested above. It would not be one of the two alternating "Left Page" - "Right Page" pair. Now, one could argue that this use case is common enough to merit adding this style to the list of styles defined by default. I... don't have a strong opinion about that actually. Perhaps. Certainly, if we get rid of some of the PS'es defined by default right now we'll have plenty of room left. A second option would be to allow page breaks to dictate that the page after the break should be considered a "first page" w.r.t. the style. That means we would not need pairs of styles for different possible chapter page styles.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #39) > (In reply to David from comment #36) > > And how do you propose to remove headers, for instance, on just the first > > page? > > At the same dialog, there is also an option for having a different header on > the first page (which could be empty). How are multiple consecutive chapters or sections to automatically be accounted for? The header was just an example of one possible element. What if margins or page layout or any other option is also wanted changed for only the first page for multiple chapters or sections? > I suggest you add a "Book Chapter First Page" style, whose Next Style is the > "Book Page" I suggested above. It would not be one of the two alternating > "Left Page" - "Right Page" pair. Yes, I could make a new style or even pick the First Page style to re-configure. But let's see... What might possibly be a good built-in choice for a name if I want to put the first page of a chapter or section on only the right-hand side? Hmmm.... Could be "First Page" if that style isn't in use for something else in a complex document, or maybe something like "Right Page" might be a good description for an only right page style? Just because the Right/Left Page styles as an alternating pair might be considered of little value, is that a sufficient reason to just eliminate the pair as built-in styles when those descriptions might also fit uses other than as an alternating pair?
(In reply to David from comment #40) > How are multiple consecutive chapters or sections to automatically be > accounted for? I actually don't quite have a good grasp of the interplay of sections and page styles in LO, considering that sections can start in the middle of a page and can be nested. As for chapters - that was your second question. > The header was just an example of one possible element. What > if margins or page layout or any other option is also wanted changed for > only the first page for multiple chapters or sections? Different margins = different page style. Basically, you're just describing why custom page styles are important and necessary. > Yes, I could make a new style or even pick the First Page style to > re-configure. No, you couldn't. That's the style for the first page in a sequence of Default-Page-Style documents. Its other uses in your document would be messed up. > But let's see... What might possibly be a good built-in choice > for a name if I want to put the first page of a chapter or section on only > the right-hand side? "If I want XYZ" - Define your own custom style to do more specific things which you want. When you start with a common use case and keep adding specificity, it becomes a not-common-enough use case. > Hmmm.... Could be "First Page" if that style isn't in > use for something else in a complex document, or maybe something like "Right > Page" might be a good description for an only right page style? 1. Again, you're suggesting a different and contradictory use for "Right Page". If you actually want that - open a bug about it. 2. No, it really couldn't, because what you described is not the style of "Right Page"'s, whatever that means.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #41) > Different margins = different page style. Maybe the top margin is to be changed on the first page. The spacing on a heading could be changed, but so could the page margin. > No, you couldn't. That's the style for the first page in a sequence of > Default-Page-Style documents. Its other uses in your document would be > messed up. And if you notice in my example document that the next style is set for a default page style, which I usually set as mirrored. > "If I want XYZ" - Define your own custom style to do more specific things > which you want. Why are you demanding what I do? > 1. Again, you're suggesting a different and contradictory use for "Right > Page". If you actually want that - open a bug about it. > 2. No, it really couldn't, because what you described is not the style of > "Right Page"'s, whatever that means. OK. Then please attach a sample document so that we can all learn what a better (i.e. simpler) procedure would be than what I have attached and so I don't run afoul of the page style police. -Assume multiple chapters or sections. -Assume that no direct configuration is to be done by the user. -Assume that any header/footer information is changed only by fields. -Assume that each chapter or section is to begin only on a right-hand page. -Assume that a heading will be used to initiate a page break with the specified style and only as a right-hand page. -Assume that other options may also want to be re-configured for only that right-hand page.
(In reply to David from comment #42) > OK. Then please attach ... assume ... assume ... assume.. None of that is relevant to this bug. If you believe the default styles should cater to this set of assumptions, please open a bug about that.
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #43) > None of that is relevant to this bug. If you believe the default styles > should cater to this set of assumptions, please open a bug about that. So the only explanation is that a different use of these styles (even though an only right-hand or only left-hand page is wanted) isn't relevant and therefore they should still be removed.