Bug 54520 - VIEWING: References to footnotes not super scripted
Summary: VIEWING: References to footnotes not super scripted
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Writer (show other bugs)
(earliest affected) release
Hardware: All All
: lowest minor
Assignee: Not Assigned
Keywords: needsDevEval
: 63464 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks: Footnote-Endnote Fields-Cross-Reference
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2012-09-04 23:45 UTC by fenglich
Modified: 2023-09-30 03:17 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:

Demonstrates footnote not super scripted, and foot note not appearing in TOC. (9.92 KB, application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text)
2012-09-10 11:47 UTC, fenglich

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description fenglich 2012-09-04 23:45:36 UTC
Problem description: 

If a reference text references a heading containing a footnote, it's not super scripted.

Perhaps this is a general problem, that formatting is lost.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create a Header 1 paragraph. In it's text, have a footnote "1"
2. Create a new paragraph and insert a cross reference of type Reference to Header 1.

Current behavior:

The reference, containing the number of the footnote, is not super scripted.

Expected behavior:

The footnote should be super scripted.

Platform (if different from the browser): 
Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_8_1) AppleWebKit/537.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/21.0.1180.89 Safari/537.1
Comment 1 fenglich 2012-09-05 00:04:32 UTC
The foot note is not in the TOC. I don't know if this is a bug, or by design.
Comment 2 fenglich 2012-09-10 11:47:45 UTC
Created attachment 66922 [details]
Demonstrates footnote not super scripted, and foot note not appearing in TOC.

Attached test case demonstrates the problem with footnote in TOC and reference.

It's hard to say what is bug and what is by design. I don't know if it boils down to the ODT specification, or a matter of a policy decision for LibreOffice.

Anyhow, might be useful to add this document to your test suite such that this scenario gets baselined.
Comment 3 A (Andy) 2012-12-27 15:39:04 UTC
reproducible with LO (Win7 Home, 64bit)

But I think the footnote should not belong to the header, otherwise you would need maybe this footnote also on further pages if the reference text is for instance moved to the next page.  But if you try this in the test document then you will find no footnote on the next page, although you would actually need it in this case.
Therefore, I think the footnote should not belong to the header, but if it should also be mentioned in the reference then it should be superscript and the footnote should also be copied to the page of the reference.  
But I personally would rather say that the footnote should not belong to the header.

When I tested the test document, then it seemed not be possible to format the footnote not as a header.  In addition, I recognised that if I format the header as a normal text body, then the reference will nevertheless be kept and this seems to my mind not to be consistent.

I think this issue needs to be evaluated further and the procedure needs improvements.  Maybe somebody else can help with this issue?
Comment 4 Owen Genat (retired) 2013-05-13 08:21:46 UTC
What is mentioned in comment #3 is correct as far as style goes. Refer my comment here:

Comment 5 Joel Madero 2014-05-28 04:00:42 UTC
I'm focusing on the original report not comment 1 ( it seems like by design btw - who wants a footnote superscript in TOC?)

For description:

I have been able to confirm the issue on:
Version: 4.3 beta1
Platform :Ubuntu 14.04

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
As I've been able to confirm this problem I am marking as:

New (confirmed)
Normal - could theoretically prevent professional quality work.
Lowest - seems like a very rare corner case (note not one other person has reported similar problem in 2 years)

Whiteboard Status - NeedsDevEval (might be an easy hack)

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
LibreOffice is powered by a team of volunteers, every bug is confirmed (triaged) by human beings who mostly give their time for free. We invite you to join our triaging by checking out this link:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugTriage and join us on freenode at #libreoffice-qa

There are also other ways to get involved including with marketing, UX, documentation, and of course developing -  http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/. 

Lastly, good bug reports help tremendously in making the process go smoother, please always provide reproducible steps (even if it seems easy) and attach any and all relevant material
Comment 6 Robinson Tryon (qubit) 2015-12-13 11:21:31 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 7 QA Administrators 2017-01-03 19:48:03 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete, spam)
Comment 8 Gellért Gyuris 2018-08-31 11:03:26 UTC
Not present in:
Build ID: libreoffice-
CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 4.15; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3; 
Locale: hu-HU (hu_HU.UTF-8); Calc: group threaded

If I understand the problem well: In the original report the attached document appeared:

Table of Contents
Header 1 paragraph1

Header 1 paragraph1
Here is a reference to the previous paragraph: Header 1 paragraph1

But in LO 6.1 (press F9, refreshing fields):

Table of Contents
Header 1 paragraph

Header 1 paragraph1
Here is a reference to the previous paragraph: Header 1 paragraph

So: The footnote number isn't displayed in TOC and in the reference. So it's formatting is not problem anymore.
Comment 9 QA Administrators 2019-09-02 09:28:14 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete, spam)
Comment 10 Justin L 2019-09-27 14:08:40 UTC
In 6.1 and 6.4 master I still see a one at the end. Pasted below:

Here is a reference to the previous paragraph: Header 1 paragraph1
Comment 11 QA Administrators 2021-09-27 03:24:14 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 12 Timur 2021-09-29 13:30:22 UTC
*** Bug 63464 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 13 QA Administrators 2023-09-30 03:17:51 UTC
Dear fenglich,

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://web.libera.chat/?settings=#libreoffice-qa

Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone!

Warm Regards,
QA Team