https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149230
--- Comment #5 from Mike Kaganski <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Rafael Lima from comment #4) Your proposal has two main parts: 1. #1, #3: detect existing DF. This is something targeted on resolving *problems*, i.e., it's not a feature to help *creating and working* on documents normally, but a means to rectify some document causing headaches because of its (lack of) structure. While it's useful, I disagree that this mental model should be considered the main UI part. IMO we should not make Writer look like repairment toolset (which is the central part *currently* for anyone *already fluent with styles*, and who has to rectify everything before starting to work creatively). Its UI should focus on ease of creation good documents from start to end, using proper tools, so *initially* I suggest to focus on an idealized workflow as if user does not use DF in wrong ways, and the existing documents and templates are using styles. So for that idealized model, the UI would *not* need repairment tools at all. Start with some limited workflow where all the content comes from user typing and drawing themselves, and make that comfortable using styles as main tool. Then extend the workflow to pieces of content coming from outside, like using clipboard - and then again, don't focus on repair, but think what workflow could make it correct from start (e.g., what limits usefulness of paste as plain text? that it drops *content* and *styles* along with other formatting. Imagine "Paste with clean formatting" pasting rich content, and only dropping DF in the process automatically, and make it the default paste - and one place where we need repairs would be gone). After a UI is prepared with that mental model, we could *then* think how to supplement it with convenience tools to repair what needs repair. Also that part alienates DF completely, making it something completely "bad", to be avoided at all cost. Note that that approach is wrong. There are lots of DF that is OK and beneficial, and which lack would force users to have exponentially growing number of styles: e.g., each time I switch keyboard layout from English to Russian on my Windows system, my Writer applies a DF with respective language to the typed text, and I don't need two paragraph texts, two emphasized texts, two footnotes, ... Same for rsid - the identified added as DF to allow comparing documents better. Not to mention many legitimate one-off DF use cases. Writer has styles *and* DF, and the goal should not be "never ever use DF". 2. #2: make documents ODF-incompliant, and in fact make DF completely useless (simply because if styles have precedence over DF, it is equivalent to DF completely absent: there is no formatting that is not defined in some style (e.g., in paragraph style) at least implicitly; so no matter what DF you would try to apply, it would not be used, because respective formatting from paragraph style would be used). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
