https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152712
--- Comment #13 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #11) > and at the same time, I suppose that the *specific* example (paragraph > spacing) can get a *targeted* improvement. ... until it really becomes > reasonable to have some *universal* mechanism. But Mike, the mechanism will almost certainly be the one above, which is actually quite general. This bug is not strictly, or even not basically, about the UI, but the capability. If that's in place, there would be the discussion of how to expose it in a way which doesn't clutter the UI. Perhaps some features will have more exposure, and others less. At any rate, initially nothing will be exposed, and exposure may require "targeted" issues. ------------ (not part of the reply) but I should mention a few points of difficulty: * When inheriting from multiple styles, it may not be clear which is the parent to which to relate additions, multiplications, flips etc. Solution: If all of the parents which have the relevant feature set (directly or by inheritance) agree, then the agreed value is used; otherwise, setting a relative value is an error. * There is setting relative to the parent style, and setting relative to a style in another family. Specifically, CS settings relative to PS settings, or to the default CS of a PS. How should that be treated? As a "weak parent" in addition the "proper parent" of the CS? * Categorical settings (i.e. several discrete options which aren't necessarily ordered) don't typically admit some universal relative settings. And yet - for some of these, relative settings may be interesting. Example: A flipped direction -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
