Bug 75215 - Default (common) style definition is ignored for ruby text
Summary: Default (common) style definition is ignored for ruby text
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Writer (show other bugs)
(earliest affected) release
Hardware: All All
: medium normal
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL: http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1....
Keywords: needsDevEval
Depends on:
Reported: 2014-02-19 16:09 UTC by pc
Modified: 2015-12-18 10:35 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:

Barebones file to demonstrate the bug. (1.03 KB, application/xml)
2014-02-19 16:09 UTC, pc
FODT using an automatic (rather than common) style definition. (1.16 KB, application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text-flat-xml)
2014-09-13 07:07 UTC, Owen Genat (retired)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description pc 2014-02-19 16:09:38 UTC
Created attachment 94368 [details]
Barebones file to demonstrate the bug.

Writer ignores default styles in the ruby style family, i.e. those from
<style:default-style style:family="ruby">

In files saved by LibreOffice, ruby styles are generated as automatic styles and assigned by name. I don’t know a way to change the default style.

Tested on Windows in version and Linux in version
Comment 1 Jean-Baptiste Faure 2014-04-21 13:13:32 UTC
What is ruby style family?

Best regards. JBF
Comment 2 pc 2014-04-21 20:14:04 UTC
I’m unsure what to add.

OpenDocument files are XML (and usually zipped), following certain rules that are documented in the linked specification. It contains a (large) section on styles (the way that things are displayed), parts of which apply to ruby text. These are marked with the attribute style:family="ruby" and make up the ruby style family.
Comment 3 Jean-Baptiste Faure 2014-04-22 05:05:35 UTC
Thank you for the answer, but the problematic word is not "style", it is "ruby".

That said, did you try with a true OpenDocument file (.odt)?

Best regards. JBF
Comment 4 pc 2014-04-23 20:01:51 UTC
So… do you get my point?

No, I didn’t test an .odt and I don’t think it’s a parser problem. An .odt is just a splitted and zipped version of .fdot and they probably use the same code for parsing. For illustration purposes, a .fodt is easier to handle. I tested it against the Relax-NG schema of the specification. It passes and LibreOffice should be able to handle it correctly.

It just seems that this part of the specification is unimplemented. There’s no UI for it and such entries don’t appear in saved documents. They are even stripped when saving.
Comment 5 Owen Genat (retired) 2014-09-13 07:07:15 UTC
Created attachment 106205 [details]
FODT using an automatic (rather than common) style definition.

It would seem this report may relate to whether ruby text is considered a common (<office:styles>) or automatic (<office:automatic-styles>) style by the LO implementation. ODF v1.2, Part 1, §3.15.3 states:

> Common and automatic styles behave differently in OpenDocument editing consumers.
> Common styles are presented to the user as a named set of formatting properties. 
> The formatting properties of an automatic style are presented to a user as 
> properties of the object to which the style is applied.

In attachment 94368 [details] the ruby text is defined by a bare <text:ruby> element that relies on this default (common) style definition:

>    <style:default-style style:family="ruby">
>      <style:ruby-properties
>        style:ruby-align="center"
>        style:ruby-position="below"
>      />

... which is being ignored. Editing the provided example and changing the referencing element to <text:ruby text:style-name="Ru1"> and including a related (automatic) style definition:

>    <style:style style:name="Ru1" style:family="ruby">
>      <style:ruby-properties 
>        style:ruby-align="center" 
>        style:ruby-position="below"
>      />

... results in a working example[1], with the ruby text centred and positioned below the base text. Refer attached. It will need an expert to determine if the current implementation (using an automatic style) is appropriate or not.

[1] This is the type of XML generated if the example is saved to ODT. Also note that I removed the original default (common) style definition.
Comment 6 Owen Genat (retired) 2014-09-13 07:20:30 UTC
To be clear (to the OP) I am not stating this is NOT a bug but rather that an expert is required to determine if using a default (common) style definition in isolation is considered sufficient / valid. The section of ODF quoted tends to indicate that this MAY be an implementational issue, however using a default (common) style definition in isolation may also be valid. Summary amended for clarity. Both original (common style) and newly provided (automatic style) examples tested under:

- v3.5.7.2 Build ID: 3215f89-f603614-ab984f2-7348103-1225a5b
- v4.1.6.2 Build ID: 40ff705089295be5be0aae9b15123f687c05b0a
- v4.2.6.3 Build ID: 3fd416d4c6db7d3204c17ce57a1d70f6e531ee21
- v4.3.1.2 Build ID: 958349dc3b25111dbca392fbc281a05559ef6848

Respective behaviour is identical in all cases i.e., common style example fails to render correctly, while automatic style example renders as expected. Version therefore set to v3.5.7.2.
Comment 7 QA Administrators 2015-04-01 14:47:03 UTC
Dear Bug Submitter,

This bug has been in NEEDINFO status with no change for at least
6 months. Please provide the requested information as soon as
possible and mark the bug as UNCONFIRMED. Due to regular bug
tracker maintenance, if the bug is still in NEEDINFO status with
no change in 30 days the QA team will close the bug as INVALID
due to lack of needed information.

For more information about our NEEDINFO policy please read the
wiki located here:

If you have already provided the requested information, please
mark the bug as UNCONFIRMED so that the QA team knows that the
bug is ready to be confirmed.
Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone!

Warm Regards,
QA Team
Comment 8 Owen Genat (retired) 2015-04-04 12:25:14 UTC
Would be good to get developer input on this (refer comment 5). NeedsDevEval tag added to whiteboard.
Comment 9 QA Administrators 2015-05-06 14:21:21 UTC
Dear Bug Submitter,

Please read this message in its entirety before proceeding.

Your bug report is being closed as INVALID due to inactivity and
a lack of information which is needed in order to accurately
reproduce and confirm the problem. We encourage you to retest
your bug against the latest release. If the issue is still
present in the latest stable release, we need the following
information (please ignore any that you've already provided):

a) Provide details of your system including your operating
   system and the latest version of LibreOffice that you have
   confirmed the bug to be present

b) Provide easy to reproduce steps – the simpler the better

c) Provide any test case(s) which will help us confirm the problem

d) Provide screenshots of the problem if you think it might help

e) Read all comments and provide any requested information

Once all of this is done, please set the bug back to UNCONFIRMED
and we will attempt to reproduce the issue. Please do not:

a) respond via email 

b) update the version field in the bug or any of the other details
   on the top section of our bug tracker

-- The LibreOffice QA Team 

This INVALID Message was generated on: 2015-05-06

Warm Regards,
QA Team
Comment 10 Robinson Tryon (qubit) 2015-12-18 10:35:21 UTC
Migrating Whiteboard tags to Keywords: (needsDevEval)