Summary: | Allow specifying the outline level considered to be "chapter" when using the "For" option in the Type tab of the Insert Table of Contents dialog | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | LibreOffice | Reporter: | RGB <rgb.mldc> |
Component: | Writer | Assignee: | Not Assigned <libreoffice-bugs> |
Status: | NEW --- | ||
Severity: | enhancement | CC: | dgp-mail, emanuele.gissi, ilmari.lauhakangas, rb.henschel, sdc.blanco, thomas.lendo |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | Inherited From OOo | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
URL: | https://ask.libreoffice.org/t/how-can-i-create-multiple-tables-of-contents-for-master-document-subdocuments/27587 | ||
See Also: |
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94218 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130318 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104182 |
||
Whiteboard: | |||
Crash report or crash signature: | Regression By: | ||
Bug Depends on: | 153751 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 89606, 108237, 130318 | ||
Attachments: | Using Assign Styles to set (arbitrary) outline levels for a TOC |
Description
RGB
2017-09-09 10:11:50 UTC
Regina: is this possible with the current ODF? No. The attribute is text:index-scope and it has the literal values "document" and "chapter". For chapter the description is: "A chapter consists of all those paragraphs and headings which have the same immediately preceding heading with outline level 1." So the level is explicitly named as "1". Ok, so it is not possible to implement this enhancement request in LibreOffice today. Nonetheless I'll change the status to NEW with metabug "ODF-spec". Maybe sometime in the future ODF will allow such feature, then it's ready to implement. Other users can find this bug request easier with no resolution which will prevent duplicates. From my point of view I would appreciate such feature. It seems like the following could be used for making a partial TOC. Insert > Table of Contents, Index, Bibliography > Type tab Create From section uncheck "Outline" check Additional Styles open "Additional Styles" dialog choose which PS to include and at what level. Or have I misunderstood? (In reply to sdc.blanco from comment #4) > It seems like the following could be used for making a partial TOC. Yes, it could be a workaround. The problem is, that you have to exclude the PS "Chapter" from chapter numbering to assign level 1 in that PS. Created attachment 170738 [details] Using Assign Styles to set (arbitrary) outline levels for a TOC (In reply to Dieter from comment #5) > The problem is, that you have to exclude the PS "Chapter" from > chapter numbering to assign level 1 in that PS. Please see attached, where Chapter (Heading 1?), is not excluded from Tools > Chapter Numbering, but appears as Level 2 in the TOC. Is that what was needed/requested? If so, why is the attached a "workaround"? Your example file doesn't match the original problem:
It has the tite "Appendix" and two headings with PS "Heading 1". You've created a TOC for the whole document, but bug reporter asked for TOC for each chapter.
Steps to reproduce the problem
1. Open attachment 170738 [details]
2. Tools => Chapter Numbering
3. Level 1 = PS Appendix
4. Level 2= PS Heasding 1
5. Place cursor in paragraph that begins with "I guess that"
6. Insert => TOC => Tab "Type"
7. Create index for chapter
8. Create from Additional styles (deselect "Outline" and "Index Marks")
9. Assign Styles => Assign Style "Heading 1" to level 1 => O.K. => O.K.
Actual result
TOC with three entries (because whole doicument ist counted as one chapter due to settings in chapter numbering)
Expected result
TOC with one entry (because "Heading 1" is counted as "chapter", because (for example) cursor is placed at the beginning of this chapter)
As done in a linked bug (https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130318) here is the link to a use case for this feature. It's the current text of the Italian Fire Safety Code. Here it is at Github: https://github.com/codicepi/codicepi-edit See the pdf export at: https://github.com/codicepi/codicepi-edit/releases I think that a feasible solution for the implementation of this feature, that does not break backwards compatibility, is the following idea from Heiko Tietze: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130318#c11 I would be ready to contribute financial resources for solving this. Thank you again. |