Bug 166371 - Properly implement ODF style:writing-mode for vertical writing in table cells
Summary: Properly implement ODF style:writing-mode for vertical writing in table cells
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: LibreOffice (show other bugs)
Version:
(earliest affected)
25.8.0.0 alpha0+
Hardware: All All
: medium enhancement
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: ODF-import ODF-1.4-Support
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2025-04-27 23:33 UTC by Regina Henschel
Modified: 2025-04-28 23:10 UTC (History)
0 users

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 Regina Henschel 2025-04-27 23:33:20 UTC
The formatting of a table cell is done by the element <style:table-cell-properties> (17.18 ODF 1.4). That has the attribute style:writing-mode (20.404.6 ODF 1.4) with values lr-tb, rl-tb, tb-rl, tb-lr, sideways-rl, sideways-lr or page.

The implementation of this attribute is in a bad state. Problems are e.g.
- Cells in a spreadsheet do not use the style:writing-mode for East Asian vertical writing. That would be style:writing-mode="tb-rl" or style:writing-mode="tb-lr". But LO uses the attributes style:direction="ttb" (20.263 ODF 1.4) together with style:glyph-orientation-vertical="auto" (20.297 ODF 1.4). This is a workaround, because it cannot distinguish between the block direction right-to-left for Japanese and left-to-right for Mongolian.
- A table shape in Draw/Impress does no allow vertical writing mode at all.
- A table in Writer allows only the vertical modes tb-rl and sideways-lr (currently written as loext:bt-lr). LO can render mode tb-lr in Writer, if the writing mode is inherited from the page style by attribute value "page", that is "use superordinate object settings" in the UI.
- No table can render mode sideways-rl.
Comment 1 Eyal Rozenberg 2025-04-28 23:10:03 UTC
Should this not block only ODF-1.4-Support? I mean, I set up these meta-bugs as carve-outs of the bug 94587. Do you see this differently?