https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160686
--- Comment #46 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to ajlittoz from comment #45) > Stumping on this bug report totally unexpectedly, but since discussion is > very long I didn't read everything. I'm afraid perhaps the long argument with David makes readers lose track of the main point made already in the opening comment... the consideration of page position relative to a book spine is a mechanism intrinsic to a _single_ page style, and does not need a pair of completely separate page styles to handle. > I wonder if Eyal's complaints does not come from its RTL context (mentioned > in one of the early comments). I think this is the core of the problem. No, that's not the core, it's peripheral; I've repeated the core of the problem above. It's just when also considering RTL, the conceptual problems with the "Left Page" and "Right Page" styles become more glaring, and the confusion of users with their availability is more serious (especially when it is confounded by the atrocious semantic difference of Page Styles from other styles, in that when you format a sequence of pages, you change the named style rather than applying a DF; see bug 161078.) > In the common LTR context of most of us, pages follow a sequence right(1), > left(2), right(3), left(4),… We usually start our chapters on a right page. > This is dictated by our reading order and binding side (left when book is > closed) You are not defining what a "Left" or "Right" page means... so, let me assume you mean pages which, when the book is open to them, are located to the left-of-spine and right-of-spine respectively. Even with this formulation - your claim is often not true. The first page in a document may be either a left-of-spine or a right-of-spine: * The author may intend for the left page to correspond to the book's front cover (so, right-of-spine); * but it could also be the printing on the back-side of the cover (left-of-spine); * or a page that's glued to the back-side of the cover (left-of-spine); * or the page after that one (right-of-spine); * or if that's considered necessarily empty, then the next page after that (left-of-spine). But again, that is a minor point and not the core of the bug. > Alternation left-right makes sense in both cases; you simply start > differently. If the pages are contiguous when bound, this alternation makes sense - but not an alternation of page _styles_; just an alternation of the side on which the gutter space is added. > BUT, left pages are odd-numbered in LTR No, left-of-spine pages are not necessarily odd-numbered, because: 1. Pages may not be bound contiguously when printed; 2. Pages are not necessarily numbered at all; 3. The numbering of pages may not begin with the first page; 4. The number of pages may not begin with page number 1 Note also, that if you were to make this statement about "Left Page"-style pages, then there would also be: 5. In LibreOffice Page numbering is not an aspect of the Page Style. > Writer must be informed about the cultural context of the document. Now, that might be an interesting avenue to pursue. But whether it is or it isn't - we should still remove the "Left Page" and "Right Page" styles, so that users either edit the default style to introduce an alternating-gutter-position layout, or we could have a _single_ style named "Book Page" or "Alternating-Gutter Page" etc., with this feature. > The simplest tempoary workaround is an option to remove side-parity > constraint. If I interpret your suggestion correctly - I would tweak it so as to apply it to single page styles, it would be a suggestion that the Page Style dialog, Page pane, would offer an explicit choice of whether the first page is to the right-of-spine or to the left-of-spine (if there is a spine and a gutter defined). And, again, it wouldn't resolve the bug. But I might have misunderstood the suggestion. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
