In bug 161078 it is noted, that users cannot apply direct-formatting to page sequences, while they can apply DF to characters, paragraphs, lists etc. This is both inconsistent and confusing to users, who try to format the current page sequence only to see the changes apply to all page sequences with the current Page Style. That bug was closed, with the arguments being: * "Don't see the need for direct formatting" * " 'making use of styles easy/promoting the use of styles' is a good principle in our work" If those argument are indeed accepted - very well then. Let's apply them to the rest of the styles, at least in Writer and perhaps in LO overall: * The Format menu items will open dialogs for the current styles. * The Format toolbar buttons applying DF (e.g. font size, bold, italic, highlighted etc.) will either be removed completely, or made to change the active character or paragraph style. * etc. This way we will get rid of the needless direct formatting, make it easier to use styles, and perform the ultimate promotion of styles in our work. Additionally, when files are imported (e.g. DOC, DOCX, RTF files) - we will create artificial styles for direct-formatted content, for every kind of direct formatting (or perhaps for every instance of direct formatting).
This is INVALID. It is created for a specific purpose to use a false dichotomy to justify bug 161078.
Really, Eyal? -1
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #2) > Really, Eyal? > > -1 Hey, it's not my opinion (at least, not in a world when most people are used to MS Office). But I want people who oppose this suggestion to explain why keeping DF is important and useful and needed, and why we should fail to promote the use of styles by forcing every formatting to change the style. If they make such an argument, then let's close this bug, by all means. But we'll also open bug 161078, by their own arguments.
Bug 161070 was close specifically as DF on PgS, ie. adding more DF. And for this purpose we introduced the "Formatting (Styles)" toolbar. While I'd go even further, the majority of experts and the users want to keep the status quo. => INV
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #3) > (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #2) > > Really, Eyal? > > > > -1 > > Hey, it's not my opinion (at least, not in a world when most people are used > to MS Office). But I want people who oppose this suggestion to explain why > keeping DF is important and useful and needed, and why we should fail to > promote the use of styles by forcing every formatting to change the style. > > If they make such an argument, then let's close this bug, by all means. But > we'll also open bug 161078, by their own arguments. Uh, no. That is just "bikesheding" at its worse. We have other things to focus on and this is a non-issue! Please just accept that "Pages" are not/can not appropriately be attributed without use of a style dialog. It has nothing to do with DF vs Style based layout.
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #5) > Please just accept that "Pages" are not/can not appropriately be attributed > without use of a style dialog. The question of whether formatting resolution for pages is a single page or a sequence of pages between breaks is: * Orthogonal to whether formatting can be done directly or only via styles. * Not something I've brought up in either of these two issues. So I don't understand why you're mentioning it.