https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=146663
--- Comment #4 from Telesto <[email protected]> --- > Sigh. A regression is something that works *worse* than before. In my perception it's 'worse', in the sense of Character DF getting removed by applying Paragraph Style. But obviously it depends on what counts as a regression. Developer point of view surely different from user point of view.. > Not every change is a regression. True > So what we have here? There is a UI convention established since early suite > days, that setting character attributes to a whole paragraph sets them to > paragraph. > We have an artificially constructed case, that employs the > external format (or filter) deficiency, that *paragraph properties* are > exported/imported as character properties. So the truth is: the property > that you inspect is *originally* paragraph property, and only end up as > whole-paragraph text portion because of some deficiency. And we have a code > explicitly created to handle such special case as paragraph properties, > which is consistent with the mentioned UI convention, consistent with the > observed deficiency, and thus IMO completely OK. So what is the actual > *problem* (i.e., something that prevents you from making your job done) > here, that was possible before the "regression"? It's working unexpected; from user perspective. With code knowledge you're surely capable of explaining why it happens. > I thank you for the bibisect, but I really can't see how it is reasonable to > mark things this "automated" way. The "regression" part is based on the observation prior post. It did function (why/how/what) required in depth knowledge. And well 'regression' tag can be removed if that's the annoyance... --- FWIW: bug 146660 comment 10 steps 1-3 have the same problem source. So DOCX is only different way for exposing the problem. The behaviour is a contrary to what a user expects (how it's formatted accordantly to the Style Inspector) A bug report obviously focus on cases where it doesn't work out as expected. No clue about the extend - how common - the problem actually is. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
