As I have recently started a very long article that with a length of several hundreds of pages, I found that the page number is somewhat weird between one hundred and two hundred.
The correct experession of one hundred in Chinese should be 「一百」, but the "one" in "one hundred" is missing and the display become 「百」. Further more, the "zero" between hundreds and ones are missing too. The correct expression of one hundred and one is 「一百零一」, but now it became 「百一」 which literally means one hundred and ten and quite confusing.
I have recently written a java program which can convert integer number to number in Chinese, and it is now in http://paste.ubuntu.com/7313644 . I know that this program has terrible structure and efficiency so it is just for referencing. It can only convert numbers from 0 to 99,999,999 too, but I think that's enough.
Confirmed in libreoffice 22.214.171.124,Build ID: 6c3586f855673fa6a1576797f575b31ac6fa0ba3
Set to new.
(However, I don't think it's a good idea to use "一，二，三..." as page numbers, and few people do that.
Created attachment 98003 [details]
a odt file with Chinese-char page numbers
I have inserted a page break and set page number start from 100.
so the 2nd page number should be "一百" (100), rather than "百"
the 3rd page number should be "一百零一" (101), rather than "百一".
Created attachment 98004 [details]
pdf file shows the current bug behaviour
Created attachment 98009 [details]
Numbering list numbered by Chinese numbers from 90 to 111 in odt
This problem is not only affecting the page number, but also affecting other words using the same algorithm, such as the numbered list, as this attachment shows.
I don't think this is a localization issue. Changing component to LibreOffice.
The issue here appears to be that there are not separate page (and other - list, etc.) numbering styles for Chinese and Japanese. The behaviour of the current 一, 二, 三, ... numbering is correct for Japanese, where one says "Hundred One" (百一) for 101 rather than "One Hundred Zero One" (一百零一) as in Chinese.
The precedent for this is that there are already separate entries for the visually similar Bulgarian, Russian and Serbian numbering, each tagged with the correct language.
If we follow this example, we would need to split the numbering styles into at least:
一, 二, 三, ... (Chinese)
一, 二, 三, ... (Japanese)
There are probably other implications, e.g. for import/export filters and forward/backward compatibility
<xsl:when test="$number-format = 'chinese-counting-thousand' or $number-format = 'ideograph-digital' or $number-format = 'japanese-counting' or $number-format = 'japanese-digital-ten-thousand' or $number-format = 'taiwanese-counting-thousand' or $number-format = 'taiwanese-counting' or $number-format = 'taiwanese-digital' or $number-format = 'chinese-counting' or $number-format = 'korean-digital2' or $number-format = 'chinese-not-impl'">
<xsl:attribute name="style:num-format">一, 二, 三, ...</xsl:attribute>
If I read this correctly, we are folding numerous OOXML numbering formats into "一, 二, 三, ...". A thorough resolution of this issue should include consideration of precisely how these formats differ, and whether we are doing everything reasonably possible in terms of round trip compatibility.
Created attachment 106383 [details]
Japanese and Chinese NatNum# native numbering
We have 8 different native number types for each, Chinese and Japanese, implemented. You can check these for example in Calc by applying number formats to a cell value, i.e.
for each language. I'm attaching a document illustrating this. See also offapi/com/sun/star/i18n/NativeNumberMode.idl or http://api.libreoffice.org/docs/idl/ref/namespacecom_1_1sun_1_1star_1_1i18n_1_1NativeNumberMode.html
However, it seems not all are available for native numbering in page numbers and numbering lists. See also offapi/com/sun/star/style/NumberingType.idl or http://api.libreoffice.org/docs/idl/ref/namespacecom_1_1sun_1_1star_1_1style_1_1NumberingType.html
But the exact numbering as mentioned in comment 2 ("一百" (100), "一百零一" (101)) is not present even as NatNum# numbering. The closest would be Chinese NatNum4 with "一百" (100) and "一百〇一" (101).
(In reply to comment #8)
> But the exact numbering as mentioned in comment 2 ("一百" (100), "一百零一" (101))
> is not present even as NatNum# numbering. The closest would be Chinese
> NatNum4 with "一百" (100) and "一百〇一" (101).
"一百〇一、一百〇二..." are acceptable, not bad Chinese. "百一、百二..." are really bad.
Mozilla Developer Network have some examples for this
Another examples can be found at W3C website: