https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150913
--- Comment #4 from ajlittoz <page74010...@yahoo.fr> --- The argumentation in bug 137035 doesn't seem conclusive for me. I agree that Left Page and Right Page should have special numbering properties according to their names which clearly hint at double-sided printing where page number parity is important. But there are cases where an author just numbers single-sided pages so that they can be resorted, should the leaves fall on the floor. There is also the case of document intended to be read exclusively on electronic devices. Blank pages don't really make sense. The main argument to waive the bug is the consideration for eventual printing of those documents, in which case we have "against-conventions" results. I think that if author clearly states that the document is either single-sided (a pure sequence of pages) or meant for electronic publishing, user has to accept the violating numbering. The main difficulty is to inform Writer that the document is single- or double-sided. We can infer double-sided from the use of Left Page and Right Page, attribute "Only L/R" in page styles or non-ticked "Same content on left and right pages" in Header/Footer definition. However this is not sufficient. A document may be double-sided without these criteria. Does it still make sense nowadays to design and write single-sided (with all the implications understood as well by author as readers)? If answer is "No" => WF but warn users in the documentation. If answer is yes, how difficult is the fix? If it means a huge effort or breaking things, it is not worth it. There are many serious bugs still awaiting fixes. The present report can be considered a feature request and reassigned as enhancement with lower priority. Do as you think most appropriate. This is not blocking for me. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
