TJ Frazier wrote:
Hi, Jean,
On 2/4/2010 08:07, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
Some of our user guide chapters have large numbers of cross-references
to figures that immediately follow the sentence or paragraph referring
to them; other chapters have very few x-refs in those situations.
Because x-refs have a tendency to randomly go goofy when chapters are
combined in a book, I recommend that we avoid using unnecessary x-refs.
Some are necesary, for example if they refer to a figure on a different
page, but many really are not needed for clarity. Let's purge the
unnecessary ones.
--Jean
Do you know if there's an issue filed on this? I gather that it's not
all x-refs, and hard to reproduce. If nobody's come up with a good test
case, I'll try downloading all the chapters of whatever (GS3?), and look
at the master for problems. (Any hints on what chapter(s)?)
I thought I had filed an issue several years ago, but I can't find it.
You are correct: it's not all x-refs. Later today I'll look up which
chapters have the most problems and let you know. I did some
reproducibility tests several years ago but can't find any notes and
don't remember details. I suspect that the problems occur in the parts
of files that started out in OOo1.x (or even in Word) rather than
being newly created, but I'd have to do a lot of research to confirm
that. However, it might give you a clue what to look for in the code.
BTW, sometimes when I fix the problem x-refs they stay fixed; other
times they don't. I suspect, but haven't tested, that the difference
is between deleting and reinserting the x-ref field (may stick) vs
right-clicking and amending the field (may not stick).
I don't know what "kludge" for the x-ref problem Gary is referring to
in his note. I have workarounds for a few master doc problems (not all
of them bugs), but not that one... or at least not that I can remember.
--Jean
