https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=128356
--- Comment #20 from Arrigo Marchiori <[email protected]> --- First of all, John, thank you again for helping to "connect the dots"! (In reply to John from comment #18) > (In reply to Arrigo Marchiori from comment #17) > > <style:style> elements _are not supposed to have any_ office:name attribute. > > > > Whilst not outputting the office:name attribute in the first style > definition will probably fix Issue 128356 does this numbering peculiarity > from Issue 127745 suggest something else is happening which needs to be > fixed? I am not sure. After applying the tentative fix, the corruption from issue 127745 also disappears (when saving, of course). > Note it always seems only to be FIRST style definition which is corrupted, > be it a paragraph or table style definition, or content.xml or styles.xml. > > (See comment #13) > > > See Issue 127745 - Read Error: Format error discovered ... at n,nnnn > > (row,col) > > > > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127745 > > > > The P1 Style definition is similarly corrupted and > > > > office:name="__Annotation__153_24419901911111111" > > office:name="__Annotation__158_2441990191111" > > office:name="__Annotation__248_244199019111111" > > office:name="__Annotation__401_244199019111" > > office:name="__Annotation__414_24419901911" > > > > has been inserted into the P1 Style definition. > > Note the strange numbers where a " 1 " seems to be appended again and again > to the Annotation number. We could address the fact that repeated "office:name" attributes were added to a <style:style> element. <office:name> contents being changed at every save is a different problem, for what I have seen so far. I will reply to you on that report, as I believe it is slightly off-topic here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the issue.
