[libreoffice-users] Paragraph styles for list styles

Hi :slight_smile:
Gary, Carlos said thanks on the Users List. 
Cheers chap
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

<snip />

Gary has clarified the issue. Perhaps the styles should all be
indented the same by default and just control the interline spacing
and things like that.

Another related issue is the purpose of the "List N" vs "List N Cont"
paragraph styles. From the indentation in the styles one can infer
what follows:

aditional space here

First item                             <--- Start style

Internal item                       <--- base style
   Continuation of internal item    <--- Cont style

Last item                            <--- End style

aditional space here

That cont seems to be intended to follow the base style is suggested
by the default indentation of the manually formatted lists. For
example:

2. Iternal item
    More text

Continuation of item 2

The indentation provided by the Cont style is exactly the indentation
needed by "Continuation of item 2" in a manually formatted list in
order to be left aligned with the item text. But this seems misleading
again, because the guide explains that Start will be usually linked to
Cont which will be linked to End, for lists where a single style (the
base style) isn't enough. Briefly, the alternative interpretations
are:

Start->base(->Cont)->End

vs

Start->Cont->End   or   base  (for simple formatting requirements)

I'll copy the relevant passages of the documentation for this last
issue asap, but you can see that the problem is essentially the same:
default style indentation that seems to be at odds with the usage
described by the guide, maybe because of historical reasons.

Thanks a lot

I haven't gotten around to recheck all the list paragraphs styles yet for v. 3.5.x--easy to do, using the factory-default parameters. However, the older OOo styles (v. 3.3.x) did not have consistent formatting for all the Ns, in addition to OOo's having buggy styles that could not properly be reformatted outside of a narrow indentation range for many Ns.

IMO, all those list paragraph styles need to be reformatted, according to the intended purposes for them by users or template designers, anyway.

Gary

IMO, the list paragraph styles need to be studied very carefully. I
find duplication of styles that unnecessarily makes understanding them
very complex.
     For example among the factory-default styles, the Indents & Spacing
parameters of Numbering 1 and Numbering 1 Cont. are identical. Why
should the next style for Numbering 1 Start be Numbering 1? Why is it
not Numbering 1 Cont.? Why does Numbering 1 Start have a 2 line space
above it, and Numbering 1 End have a two line space below it?
     In our chapter template we have a similar situation: OOoNum 123
Start and OOoNum 123 Cont. have identical parameters in the Indents &
Spacing tab. Why is this?

--Dan

IIRC, those two styles were created (not by me) in case we might want to change some of the parameters in future. The theory is that if the paras were tagged with the correct style, then formatting differences could be applied easily if/when desired. Same for some other pairs of other list styles.

Jean

  IMO, the list paragraph styles need to be studied very carefully. I
find duplication of styles that unnecessarily makes understanding them
very complex.

The complexity comes from the Next Style setting, which many people ignore completely.

      For example among the factory-default styles, the Indents& Spacing
parameters of Numbering 1 and Numbering 1 Cont. are identical. Why
should the next style for Numbering 1 Start be Numbering 1? Why is it
not Numbering 1 Cont.? Why does Numbering 1 Start have a 2 line space
above it, and Numbering 1 End have a two line space below it?

So that the starting and ending list items are visually separated from the surrounding body.

      In our chapter template we have a similar situation: OOoNum 123
Start and OOoNum 123 Cont. have identical parameters in the Indents&
Spacing tab. Why is this?

The important setting here is the Next Style definition, such as we may have:

List 1 Start -> List 1 Cont. -> List 1 End
                   ^ |

  IMO, the list paragraph styles need to be studied very carefully. I
find duplication of styles that unnecessarily makes understanding them
very complex.

The complexity comes from the Next Style setting, which many people ignore completely.

      For example among the factory-default styles, the Indents& Spacing
parameters of Numbering 1 and Numbering 1 Cont. are identical. Why
should the next style for Numbering 1 Start be Numbering 1? Why is it
not Numbering 1 Cont.? Why does Numbering 1 Start have a 2 line space
above it, and Numbering 1 End have a two line space below it?

So that the starting and ending list items are visually separated from the surrounding body.

      In our chapter template we have a similar situation: OOoNum 123
Start and OOoNum 123 Cont. have identical parameters in the Indents&
Spacing tab. Why is this?

The important setting here is the Next Style definition, such as we may have:

List 1 Start -> List 1 Cont. -> List 1 End

According to my thinking, each ?(ordered or unordered) list should have only ONE applied End style--for the very last entry of the list--be it applied to the last list entry or a paragraph within the list. That is to provide a space after the list proper for the next entry--usually a body-text paragraph. The End styles provide more interpargraph spacing than the Start or Cont. styles. Applying them within a list would introduce undesirable spacing between nested list levels.

Gary

Hello

I have been following this discussion and found it very interesting. However, I would like to make one suggestion for the paragraph styles - KISS - keep it simple st----.

One example - why is there three styles for numbers and lists? There should be just one for each, that is OOoNum 123 and OOoList 1. There is no need for Start, Cont and End styles if you set paragraph spacing correctly.

Second example - why do the style names begin with OOo? It would be better to simply name each style as Heading 1, Heading 2, and so on. This would make it easier to import the template into other software because other software normally uses Heading 1, Heading 2, and so on for style names.

My experience comes from working in MS Word to initially create a document and then using Framemaker for the publishing program, which my opinion was one of the best in the market. So easy to compile many chapters into one massive manual.

Regards

Peter Schofield
psauthor@gmail.com

Thanks, Peter, for saying exactly what I had not found time to say. I
totally agree.

In addition to styles added to the templates for various reasons that
may have made sense at the time, others have crept in that were never
intended... due to poor template management (much of it on my part).

--Jean

Hello

I have been following this discussion and found it very interesting. However, I would like to make one suggestion for the paragraph styles - KISS - keep it simple st----.

One example - why is there three styles for numbers and lists? There should be just one for each, that is OOoNum 123 and OOoList 1. There is no need for Start, Cont and End styles if you set paragraph spacing correctly.

Prior to around 2008, OOo docs did not use any special list paragraph styles and primarily used direct formatting (use of manual overrides) for creating their lists--much like using the formatting bar instead of using character styles, etc. The OOo texts suggested the wise advice that manual overrides not be used in general; however, OOoAuthors tended to not always utilize such suggestions in their own writings. Using styles makes any reformatting of the texts much more professional--in addition to saving mucho time and effort afterward.

So, using the list paragraph styles was incorporated in OOo writings around four years ago in an attempt for OOoAuthors to "eat their own home cooking" by using styles instead of the manual overrides from the earlier writings in this respect--for lists. Since then, various template designers expanded on them--resulting in what exists today in that regard--some good, some bad, some ugly.

Revisiting this issue while still using the list paragraph styles would be my advice for lists. The heavy-lifting work would then would be done by the template designers so that the authors could simply use the predefined (the factory defaults or custom) list paragraph styles in coordination with the list styles themselves--use the LO (predefined or custom) list styles for the selection of type of the ordered or unordered lists (indentation and bullet symbol used, etc.) and have the other list formatting done by the list paragraph styles.

Second example - why do the style names begin with OOo? It would be better to simply name each style as Heading 1, Heading 2, and so on. This would make it easier to import the template into other software because other software normally uses Heading 1, Heading 2, and so on for style names.

That usage dates back at least as far as OOo's pre-version 1.x days and was never discarded since. Personally, I prefer using the typical noncustom Heading n style names and creating custom styles only when necessary--e.g., when a factory-default style name does not exist. Another thing that might be considered is adapting the various flavors of the "Emphasis" character styles from MS Word, so that authors migrating over from Word could use them without creating them themselves.

My experience comes from working in MS Word to initially create a document and then using Framemaker for the publishing program, which my opinion was one of the best in the market. So easy to compile many chapters into one massive manual.

OOo/LO and MS Word are fancy word processors, whereas FrameMaker is a hybrid word processor and DTP application. A DTP app typically utilizes advanced typesetting algorithms, in addition to other DTP functions that word processors often do not do with ease. Adobe's InDesign is much like FrameMaker, especially since InDesign now has most of FrameMaker's capabilities. InDesign is typically used for creating advertising glossies and magazines/newspapers, while FrameMaker is more geared to building books.

Myself, I tend to write book chapters with a word processor like OOo/LO or Word, then import them into FrameMaker prior to publication. Because learning how to use FrameMaker has a steep learning curve for most, it is advisable to have authors use word processors for their writing, copyediting, and rewrites, and afterward pre-publication layout editors can use DTP applications to create the final PDF to be sent off to a publisher or commercial printer.

Regards

Peter Schofield
psauthor@gmail.com

Gary

Hello Gary

My comments were thrown in the pot because nobody has yet mentioned making the template simple to use. This would encourage everybody to use it correctly. Simplifying the template would also make it easier to move an LO guide document into an electronic publishing package without having formatting errors appearing in the document.

A template should have the minimum number of paragraph and character styles to provide a constant look and feel to LO guide documents. Besides the examples I gave earlier, another example is the Emphasis, Strong Emphasis and Menu character styles. No need for these because it is easier to use the standard bold and italic character styles that come with every word processor. You just have to write the writer instruction set stating what has to be used for what purpose.

I knew that Framemaker was a hybrid package and started using it in 1987 to produce documents to government standards. It certainly has a steep learning curve, but it does grow on you once you have mastered the dark secrets.

When I have time in a couple of weeks, I shall put together a sample document using my ideas so that everybody can see what I mean when with my suggestion of simplifying the template.

Regards

Peter

Totally agree