The result is a document, that contains only the heading lines. The difference between the OO-XSLT and the LO-XSLT is minimal so I think, that LO uses a different XSLT engine.
Hi tbb, could you please join a odt document + his result document (and eventually, the document that should be procuced) to see if we can reproduce with our platform. Regards
Created attachment 75578 [details] Documents to reproduce the issue I can confirm the issue on LO Version 4.0.0.3 (Build ID: 7545bee9c2a0782548772a21bc84a9dcc583b89) on Windows x64. Attached is a short ODT accompanied with the XML produced by LO when saved as docbook. It lost most of the document.
I can confirm this too for LibreOffice 4.0.1.2 (x86_64, Linux RPMS www.libreoffice.org). In my experience only very small and simple documents can be saved as Docbook.
Created attachment 76503 [details] OOo 3.4 docbook version of the Muhammad Haggag example The OOo 3.4 (same as with OOo 3.2) export to docbook of the Muhammad Haggag example. The difference is obviosly, and this example is without pictures, frames ...
** Please read this message in its entirety before responding ** To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: *Test to see if the bug is still present on a currently supported version of LibreOffice (4.4.1 or later) https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ *If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the version of LibreOffice and your operating system, and any changes you see in the bug behavior *If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a short comment that includes your version of LibreOffice and Operating System Please DO NOT *Update the version field *Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) *Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to "inherited from OOo"; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add "regression" to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=libreoffice-qa Thank you for your help! -- The LibreOffice QA Team This NEW Message was generated on: 2015-04-18
(In reply to Muhammad Haggag from comment #2) > Created attachment 75578 [details] > Documents to reproduce the issue > > I can confirm the issue on LO Version 4.0.0.3 (Build ID: > 7545bee9c2a0782548772a21bc84a9dcc583b89) on Windows x64. Attached is a short > ODT accompanied with the XML produced by LO when saved as docbook. It lost > most of the document. Still repro. Win 7 Pro 64-bit Version: 5.1.0.0.alpha1+ Build ID: 01a189abcd9a4ca472a74b3b2c000c9338fc2c91 TinderBox: Win-x86@39, Branch:master, Time: 2015-06-14_07:46:28 Locale: fi-FI (fi_FI)
** Please read this message in its entirety before responding ** To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present on a currently supported version of LibreOffice (5.1.5 or 5.2.1 https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the version of LibreOffice and your operating system, and any changes you see in the bug behavior If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a short comment that includes your version of LibreOffice and Operating System Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to "inherited from OOo"; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add "regression" to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug-20160920
Dear tbb, To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo'; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://kiwiirc.com/nextclient/irc.freenode.net/#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug
Dear QA Team, a retest is not possible because the selection of the save format "Docbook (.XML)" results in a "Word 2003 XML" format. Short the Docbook support is completely off. Bye Thomas LO 6.4.4.2 (Linux)
(In reply to tbb from comment #9) > Dear QA Team, > > a retest is not possible because the selection of the save format "Docbook > (.XML)" results in a "Word 2003 XML" format. Short the Docbook support is > completely off. What do you mean? It seems to work for me: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.1.2//EN" "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.1.2/docbookx.dtd"> <article lang=""> <para>dsff</para> </article> Tested with Arch Linux 64-bit Version: 7.0.1.2 Build ID: 00(Build:2) CPU threads: 8; OS: Linux 5.8; UI render: default; VCL: kf5 Locale: fi-FI (fi_FI.UTF-8); Käyttöliittymä: fi-FI =7.0.1-1 Calc: threaded
Please have a look at my LO version. I always test against the current production release. Possibly fixed in 7.X.X Bye Thomas
(In reply to tbb from comment #11) > Please have a look at my LO version. I always test against the current > production release. Possibly fixed in 7.X.X Please test with an appimage, it is super easy: https://libreoffice.soluzioniopen.com/
Created attachment 165566 [details] Selecting exort type
Created attachment 165567 [details] Dialog after pressing the save button
Nope, no difference. LO selects always "Word 2003 XML". The result file is in the Microsoft format (pure XML). I try the JDK 11 (Debian version) and JDK 8 (Azul version) Bye Thomas Version: 7.0.1.1 Build ID: <buildversion> CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 4.19; UI render: default; VCL: kf5 Locale: de-DE (de_DE.UTF-8); UI: de-DE Calc: threaded
(In reply to tbb from comment #15) > Nope, no difference. LO selects always "Word 2003 XML". The result file is > in the Microsoft format (pure XML). > > I try the JDK 11 (Debian version) and JDK 8 (Azul version) > > Bye Thomas > > Version: 7.0.1.1 > Build ID: <buildversion> > CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 4.19; UI render: default; VCL: kf5 > Locale: de-DE (de_DE.UTF-8); UI: de-DE > Calc: threaded That is very weird. I am using Linux and kf5 as well, but for me it works fine. What is even better is that DocbookBorked.odt now exports fine to DocBook! It does not lose anything. The full result: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.1.2//EN" "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.1.2/docbookx.dtd"> <article lang=""> <para>Docbook: Borked?</para> <para>Most indeedly<footnote><para>Yep, that's not a word.</para></footnote>, good sire</para> <sect1> <title>A Heading</title> <para>This is a normal paragraph under a heading 1.</para> <sect2> <title>A 2nd-level Heading</title> <para>This is a normal paragraph under a heading 2.</para> <orderedlist> <listitem> <para>Bullet lists?</para> </listitem> <listitem> <para>Bullet lists!</para> </listitem> </orderedlist> </sect2> <sect2> <title>Another 2nd-level Heading</title> <para>This is yet another normal paragraph under a heading 3.</para> <orderedlist> <listitem> <para>Numbered lists?</para> </listitem> <listitem> <para>NUMBERED LISTS! WOO!</para> </listitem> </orderedlist> </sect2> </sect1> </article>
That looks great! I think this issue is resolved. If my export type selection problem will be in the next production release, I will open a new entry. Thanks for your help! Bye Thomas