Created attachment 96895 [details]
Cross-reference fields don't retain the formatting that their sources (headings, Figure titles etc.) have.
Steps to reproduce:
1) Create heading with some formatting as reference source
2) Insert | Fields | Cross-references
3) Insert the formatted reference
expected: same formatting in inserted reference field
instead: no formatting :-(
This is esp. problematic for scientists who want to write manuscripts in LibreOffice. Species names are often put into headings. It is then not helpful to use fields in order to compose a manuscript coherently, e.g. with same sub-headings in Materials & Methods, Results and Discussion sections.
occurs also in v126.96.36.199
initially reported for v188.8.131.52
Hi. I understand what you want, but a wonder whether other people may prefer the opposite (current) behavior.
Despite the fact that I'm not found of this solution, I suppose that it would be great here to allow both behavior.
Kept to UNCONFIRMED to get additionnal advices.
On 2014-04-08 11:08, email@example.com wrote:
> [...] other people may prefer the opposite (current) behavior.
I can't imagine any, but if there are other use-cases in which one would
want to lose formatting: All the more reason to have an option there,
instead of one or the other as default.
Therefore, +1 for a "keep formatting"-check-box in the "Insert | Fields
This is not a bug, but an enhancement request. So, I've change the Importance field accordingly.
I'm one who prefer it as it is (i.e., opposite behaviour of the request). Besides, I think formatting is not meant to be reproduced for cross-references. Isn't it odd if you cross-reference a heading that is bold and 24pt large and in your text that is regular and 12pt?
Ah, I should elaborate: taking over all formatting would indeed be not useful. However, in particular italic is very relevant in natural sciences.
Let's reduce this enhancement request to italics only.
(In reply to comment #5)
> Let's reduce this enhancement request to italics only.
Confirmed. Status set to NEW. Summary edited for clarity. Platform set to All/All. Bug 30732 added to See Also list as it is a more general request for this functionality. It may be this report will be closed as a duplicate, but it remains to be seen to what extent the work currently being done to resolve 30732 includes this functionality.
Created attachment 123018 [details]
Test file with fields that do not keep formating
(In reply to Owen Genat (retired) from comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Let's reduce this enhancement request to italics only.
> Confirmed. Status set to NEW. Summary edited for clarity. Platform set to
> All/All. Bug 30732 added to See Also list as it is a more general request
> for this functionality. It may be this report will be closed as a duplicate,
> but it remains to be seen to what extent the work currently being done to
> resolve 30732 includes this functionality.
As you can see on the attachment (build on LibO 5.1) Bug 30732 resolves the TOC functionality, but not the problem with fields: neither the cross reference to the heading nor the "chapter field" inserted on the document footer are able to keep formatting.
Keeping sub/superscripts and italics is fundamental in technical documents, school assignments, etc.: without proper formatting, some expressions may lose their meaning.
If this be fixed, it must be limited to only certain formatting attributes. (See Comment 4.) Requesters should specify them. At this point, I get that they are limited to
(In reply to Kumāra from comment #8)
> If this be fixed, it must be limited to only certain formatting attributes.
> (See Comment 4.) Requesters should specify them. At this point, I get that
> they are limited to
> * sub/superscripts
> * italics.
> Anything else?
For me, sub/superscripts and italics are enough. Maybe bold, but nothing else.
Agreed: sub- & superscript, italic and bold. Thank you :-)
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 INSUFFICIENTDATA
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!
On comment 10 the OP agreed on the info provided on comment 9 so setting it back to NEW