https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=164126

--- Comment #6 from ajlittoz <[email protected]> ---
Since I am at the origin of the bug report (Mike Kaganski succeeded in reducing
the test case to minimum; I thank him heartily), I'll try to clarify the
context.

The sequence of paragraph is as follows:

- a heading, with _Keep with next para_ enabled, as is common with headings
- a text paragraph with _Split across page break_ enabled, orphan and widow
both set at 2 lines
- a foot note is anchored in the text paragraph

The text paragraph is 4 lines long. Text flow is such that page break occurs
between lines 2 and 3, as is expected from orphan/widow settings. The note is
anchored on the second line.

As you see, everything is very close to page bottom; so close, there is not
enough room for the note. But there is nevertheless some small room.

Writer then attempts to layout the footnote. It creates the separator and now
there is no longer any room. However, since the separator has already been
issued, the note is also inserted from the very bottom, extending upwards, thus
overlaying text.

What is expected?

A note is supposed to appear on the same page as the anchor. This means that
page break should be moved one line upwards so that the footnote'd line is sent
on next page.

But this conflicts with orphan setting requiring at least 2 lines. Then the
first paragraph line should also be sent to next page.

This leaves the heading alone at bottom of page. Its _Keep with next_ parameter
requires it to be on the same page as the text paragraph. Consequently, the
header should also be sent to next page.

This is what seems to be done in 5.4.0.2. This is a sensible solution to
reconcile all requirements.

It looks like later releases consider that the space created at bottom of page
is now high enough to accommodate the heading and the paragraph. Which is true
when you put aside the footnote.

So, the layout algorithm should be analysed to see how footnotes are handled in
this pathological case. Note there is a single footnote which is discovered
very late, i.e. on the very last line of the page. It is possible that having
another note before this one would avoid the issue because space allocation for
notes would have already begun.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

Reply via email to