[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 55436] Need another numbering scheme: *, †, ‡, §, etc. (mainly for footnotes)

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55436

Tim B  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|libreoffice-b...@lists.free |tdf_bugzilla@tim.bartletts.
   |desktop.org |id.au

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 55436] Need another numbering scheme: *, †, ‡, §, etc. (mainly for footnotes )

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55436

--- Comment #10 from Eyal Rozenberg  ---
About the different orders of symbols: This is an interesting academic
argument, but it's a bit beside the point. LO definitely needs the same order
as MS Word has, for feature parity and importing; alternative orders can also
be added as options.

How hard would it be to implement this? Is it anything beyond adding another
option on a menu and a small function converting a number to a string according
to the logic in comment #9? 

If it's easy - how come nobody's submitted a patch yet. If it's difficult -
why?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 55436] Need another numbering scheme: *, †, ‡, §, etc. (mainly for footnotes )

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55436

Stanislav Horacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda
   ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10
   ||3335

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 55436] Need another numbering scheme: *, †, ‡, §, etc. (mainly for footnotes )

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55436

V Stuart Foote  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda
   ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84
   ||317
 Blocks||88173

--- Comment #9 from V Stuart Foote  ---
Would make sense to use the ISO/IEC-29500 routine from the OOXML/ECMA-376 Part
1 
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm

(§17.18.59) pg 1413,1414

chicago

Specifies that the sequence shall consist of one or more occurrences of a
single character from the set listed below.  

To determine the text that is displayed for any value, this sequence specifies
a set of characters that represent positions 1–4 and then repeats those same
characters using the logic defined below to construct all other values.  
The set of characters used by this numbering format for values 1–4 is U+002A,
U+2020, U+2021, and U+00A7, respectively.  

For values greater than 4, the text displayed shall be constructed as follows:
1. Repeatedly subtract the size of the set (4) from the value until the result
is equal to or less than the size of the set. 2. The remainder determines which
character to use from the set above, and that character is written once and
then written once and then repeated the number of times the size of the set was
subtracted from the original value.  

[Example: The first nine items in this format are:  *, †, ‡, §, **, ††, ‡‡, §§,
***. end example

And then this would need to be added to the ww8 filter for import/export
interoperability.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88173
[Bug 88173] [Meta] Tracking bug for limitations of DOCX (OOXML) format
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 55436] Need another numbering scheme: *, †, ‡, §, etc. (mainly for footnotes )

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55436

--- Comment #8 from V Stuart Foote  ---
The "old" page and table "footnote" order for AMA (American Medical
Association) is: *, †, ‡, §, ||, ¶ then doubles, then triples. But in the last
manual they have limited the symbol usage to just page footnotes (using
superscript lowers for tables) so fewer symbols are needed for just footnotes.

Seems we would not need the double vertical line (‖ - U+2016) while use of the
pilcrow (¶ - U+00b6) would interfere with our paragraph marker when
non-printing characters are showing. 

Chicago (Univ of Chicago) manual of style uses the sequence *, †, ‡, §... when
Endnotes are mixed with Footnotes on a page.

So here I would agree to matching the MS Office OOXML use of just the *, †, ‡,
§... sequence. As it makes sense both to provide a symbol number format--but
also for interoperability--looking at an OOXML document MS Office annotates
this number format as "chicago" in the XML.

Correct way would be to add a new constant entry to the NumberingType.idl and
then implement the fixed sequence(s) of

* - U+002a
† - U+2020
‡ - U+2021
§ - U+00a7

then double symbols, then triple symbols. 

The NumberingType constant could be named "CHICAGO" in the IDL, or generic
"SYMBOL_NUMBERING".

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 55436] Need another numbering scheme: *, †, ‡, §, etc. (mainly for footnotes )

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55436

Yousuf Philips (jay)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||103164


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103164
[Bug 103164] [META] Footnote and Endnote bugs and enhancements
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 55436] Need another numbering scheme: *, †, ‡, §, etc. (mainly for footnotes )

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55436

Yousuf Philips (jay)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||needsDevEval, topicUI
 Status|REOPENED|NEW
 CC||c...@nouenoff.nl,
   ||philip...@hotmail.com,
   ||rb.hensc...@t-online.de,
   ||vstuart.fo...@utsa.edu
   See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda
   ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52
   ||048

--- Comment #7 from Yousuf Philips (jay)  ---
Hi Eyal,

If this can be easily fixed by simply adding a new entry into the Tools >
Footnotes and Endnotes dialog, then we should go for it.

@Regina, @Stuart, @Cor: Any thoughts or code pointers?

These files seemed relevant from my search.
http://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/offapi/com/sun/star/style/NumberingType.idl
http://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/sw/uiconfig/swriter/ui/footnotepage.ui

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 55436] Need another numbering scheme: *, †, ‡, §, etc. (mainly for footnotes )

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55436

Eyal Rozenberg  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
 Resolution|DUPLICATE   |---

--- Comment #6 from Eyal Rozenberg  ---
(In reply to Emanuele Gissi from comment #5)
> 
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 52048 ***

I know this decision was taken a while ago, but I had assumed it was in the
interest of expediency somehow, and that the custom-numbering-schemes bug would
be resolved soon - something which has not happened.

The common footnote numbering scheme I asked for, available in Word, is
important enough to be available regardless of the ability of defining custom
numbering schemes (and perhaps also the two schemes suggested by Roman Eisele).
The implementation is also likely - I would think - to be simpler. So, I'm
reopening this as a non-duplicate. Feel free to voice objections.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 55436] Need another numbering scheme: *, †, ‡, §, etc. (mainly for footnotes )

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55436

V Stuart Foote  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugs.documentfounda
   ||tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10
   ||2835

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 55436] Need another numbering scheme: *, †, ‡, §, etc. (mainly for footnotes)

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55436

Emanuele Gissi emanuele.gi...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

--- Comment #5 from Emanuele Gissi emanuele.gi...@gmail.com ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 52048 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 55436] Need another numbering scheme: *, †, ‡, §, etc. (mainly for footnotes)

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55436

--- Comment #3 from Eyal Rozenberg eyal...@technion.ac.il ---
Is there a keyword for MS Word feature parity?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 55436] Need another numbering scheme: *, †, ‡, §, etc. (mainly for footnotes)

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55436

--- Comment #4 from Roman Eisele b...@eikota.de ---
(In reply to comment #3)
 Is there a keyword for MS Word feature parity?

Not that I am aware of it. There is one (!) bug with the whiteboard (!) tag
INTEROPERABILITY, so you can add it here, too, but this will probably not help
very much … ;-) Once there was a very passionate QA volunteer who wanted to
create a list of all interoperability issues, to make it easier to track and
fix them, but he newer did what he announced :-(

So, what to do about this request now?

The best thing we could is to find some hacker who misses this feature, too,
and wants to add it. But at the moment, I don’t know whom to ask. Caolán
McNamara caol...@redhat.com has implemented some similar features, cf. e.g.
bug 38983, but he is one of our most important developers and very busy, so I
hesitate to ask him. If you can think of some of our freelance contributors who
has done similar work, and could sparse some time for this, so please ask him
...

Or we can just wait and hope ;-)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 55436] Need another numbering scheme: *, †, ‡, §, etc. (mainly for footnotes)

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55436

Roman Eisele b...@eikota.de changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Hardware|Other   |All
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Severity|normal  |enhancement
 CC||b...@eikota.de
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from Roman Eisele b...@eikota.de ---
IMHO this is a valid and useful feature request, so I set the status to NEW and
the importance to “Enhancement”.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 55436] Need another numbering scheme: *, †, ‡, §, etc. (mainly for footnotes)

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55436

--- Comment #2 from Roman Eisele b...@eikota.de ---
However, let me add another hint:

there is no common international order of the *, †, ‡, § … footnote symbols;
books about typography tell us that even in the English language and its
varieties there are different convention about the order of these symbols; and,
e.g., in Germany we had completely different tradition, namely to use
either
   * ** *** † †† †††
or
   * † ** †† *** †††
or just
   * ** ***  * …
(I have seen all three both in real use and in textbooks).

Because of this diversity of conventions, IMHO the best solution would be to
give the user the possibility to specify his/her own order. Could this done
just by adding an edit field to the dialog window available in Writer via
“Tools  Foot/Endnotes…”?! To the popup menu “Numbering”, we should add an
entry “Custom”; and if the user selects that entry, an additional edit field
near to the popup menu should get enabled, into which the user can enter the
desired symbols, separated by blanks and/or commas.

But if this is too difficult, it would be also helpful to fulfill Eyal
Rozenberg’s original request first, by just adding (I propose) two new entries
to the “Numbering” popup menu there:
   *, †, ‡, § …
and (I suggest)
   * ** ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs