https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160684
--- Comment #11 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #10) > (Not sure what I should understand that 'incompatible page styles' means, Incompatible in any of the properties other than the orientation: Page style, color, direction, numbering scheme etc. > The only use case I've been asked for, and helped people with in trainings, > is in reports where (here and there) one landscape page is required. And in those reports, the landscape page does not have same paper dimensions as the portrait pages? The same margins, or rather margins arranged so as to correspond to the rest of the pages? The same basic text direction (LTR/RTL)? The same page borders or lack thereof? Background color or lack thereof? ... I assume that they do, otherwise such pages would stick out physically or stylistically. > Oh.. and you didn't notice that it is comment 2 that you missed? (In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #2) > > I claim such having such a page style is nonsensical. > Big words. There are two kinds of Page Styles in LibreOffice: Custom, arbitrary ones which one may just apply to any page, and ones which are used for setting the styles of certain structurally-defined pages. With Landscape being defined by default, and given its name, the sense one makes of it is the equivalent of the Default PS, but for pages in landscape rather than portrait orientation. Except - that it isn't that thing. It is merely a style, with no particular relation to the Default PS; which doesn't automatically apply to anything; but merely has the landscape property enabled. That's what's nonsensical. Suppose I defined a style and named it "Roman-Numbered". It would be a style with the page numbering being Roman rather than Western-Arabic by default. It's not a ridiculous thing to define; and we sometimes have documents with different numbering schemes in different sections. But it would be nonsensical to have that as a part of the default list of styles - both because it is not significant enough; and because it is does not inherit the Default PS, i.e. if you change the Default PS it would diverge from it in other aspects than the aspect it's supposed. to > This page style allows users to insert at a place to their like one page (or > more pages) landscape oriented (with whatever other properties desired). Users can also do this by DF'ing their page sequence to be in Landscape orientation. And if they use a custom style, involving DF, for multiple page sequences, or just want to keep things tidy - they can define that custom style. But that does not justify having a Default-PS-dissociated "featured-lifting" style in the basic set of styles offered to all users. > I trained many people that were very happy to learn how easy and flexible > this is. How is it more flexible than DF'ing the orientation or defining a custom style? Also, were they happy to learn that if they want to change, say, the paper dimension or any other number of properties, they must change this style as well? I doubt it... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
