LO 4.0.3.3: 'Insert: Horizontal rule' is missing

users
#1

Having installed Mageia-3 on a trial basis, I have come across an omission
in its LO 4.0.3.3 that I have been using on Mageia-2's LO 3.5.7.2, namely
'Insert: Horizontal rule'

The result is that any document prepared with 3.5.7.2 does not appear
correctly under 4.0.3.3.

I see from:

http://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/14922/why-is-horizontal-line-broken-in-401/

that the omission is a deliberate change rather than accidental (although it seems
the Help info still thinks otherwise...).

Why on earth drop a feature that people are using?
What is the rationale?

Failing any other solution to my problem, is there any way I can copy the
3.5.7.2 'ruler' file over in to 4.0.3.3 so that the latter shows the lines properly?

#2

Hi :slight_smile:
Feel free to post a bug-report or wish-list item about it
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport

There might already be one but you will find that out after filling in a suitable subject-line for the report (hopefully before it asks you to fill in the message part).  I suspect that if you put a clickable link to the feature-request/bug-report in the "Ask LO" thread and another in this thread then a lot of people might support it. 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#3

Could not see one - but there is one (53852) asking for an improvement to
the now omitted function! (Last posting there Aug.26 2012...)

For new documents I could manage without the function, but I have an
existing document using horizontal rules that no longer shows the lines
correctly, so I shall raise a bug report.

I think it is poor that such a function should just be dropped for no
apparent reason, in such an incompatible way, and with no pre-discussion
that I'm aware of.

#4

Maurice,

Simply reopen issue fdo#60858
<https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60858> , but you will need to
make a strong case from a UX position as to why a horizontal rule direct
style object is needed.

Also, HTML styles and direct editing still support use of <HR> or <HR />
tagging so the "horizontal rule" is an more an issue of direct styling
paragraph separators.

A more precise discussion Ask LibreOffice thread is:
selection-of-horizontal-rule-no-longer-possible
<http://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/15930/selection-of-horizontal-rule-no-longer-possible/>

Looking at fdo#60858, the decision to remove the direct styling looks to
have been one of code maintenance...

2012-11-23
Cédric BosdonnatRemoved horizontal rule ugly 1990 thing
Change-Id: Ifafd8b2ffd9af90b6ac4ed2ee0ccd3c5e980731c
<https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/gitweb?p=core.git&a=search&h=HEAD&st=commit&s=Ifafd8b2ffd9af90b6ac4ed2ee0ccd3c5e980731c>

But a case has to be made for UX development to reestablish--that process is
via the fdo#60858 bug and the LibreOffice UX-Advise
<http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/UX-Advise-f3619688.html> list.

Stuart

#5

I've gone ahead and reopened the fdo#60858 bug.

But, is it a regression or a needed enhancement?

In either case, please make your usage case for needing horizontal rule as
separators. Should address both direct styling (i.e. from the menu) as
well as page styling (i.e. the horizontal rule applied as paragraph
separator).

#6

Now raised, but I still don't have a bug report number.
  
The gist of it is that the omission* of the Horizontal Rule option has
created a problem for documents that already have such lines, i.e. it
was an *incompatible* change.

(* I see that the mission was on grounds of 'difficulty of maintenance'.
    Does that mean we may see other useful facilities suddenly
    disappear?!)

#7

Maurice,

Your bug was fdo#65719 <https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65719>
but that has been consolidated as a duplicate of fdo#60858
<https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60858> .

Please comment against fdo#60858

Stuart

#8

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65719

(Marked as a duplicate of :

  https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60858

#9

I have started a UX-Advise thread on design review of how Horizontal Rulers
can be reintroduced to the Writer GUI.

How-to-provide-horizontal-rule-paragraph-separators
<http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/How-to-provide-horizontal-rule-paragraph-separators-tp4061353.html>

Stuart

#10

Hi :slight_smile:
It would be really great if more of us could learn how to "mark as duplicate" and other triaging stuff.  Even just a few people here learnt what is in some of those drop-downs that would be good.  I'm completely hopeless at remembering that sort of thing but there is a competition coming up soon and it would be great if the Users List were able to walk off with some of the prizes.  It's a t-shirt rather than a cup or trophy for the top 10 so it's a tad more useful!

Congrats Maurice if you were the one that marked-as-duplicate!  If Stuart did it then many thanks again to him for all his work.

Regards from

Tom :slight_smile:

#11

For me the big issue is that MSO is flamed for poor backwards compatibility with and support of its own file types, "will you be able to open those MS files 10 years down the track", and now LO are heading the same way. Surely if the horizontal rule is to be dropped as such file compatibility can be maintained by converting to a drawn line object, as could removing compatibility with earlier files from the LO binary without moving the code to an optional plugin easily accessed from the binary.
Steve

#12

+1

So much for the big discussion earlier about how everyone should switch to ODT because the standard wouldn't change. LOL

This just proves, that if you want those old files, you'd better have an old OS and software available to read them.

#13

Hi :slight_smile:
Hmm, there are many reasons for preferring non-MS.  Backwards compatibility is just 1 of the issues.  Current compatibility with it's own current formats is another.  A third is whether it's current formats work with non-MS products that do follow the OOXML ISO standard. 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#14

Preferring MS or not, or any other format, isn't the point here.

It's accessing the old files regardless of format, which even LO appears to be abandoning. You can't have it both ways, use ODT because the standards will remain unchanged so old files can be accessed while accepting a decision that prevents the accurate opening of the old files.

#15

Hi :slight_smile:
You are making it sound more complicated than it really is.

1.  There is already a bug-report about this.  I doubt everything that anyone does is 100% perfect 100% of the time.  When problems are noticed in LO a bug-report gets posted and then hopefully get worked on.  Similarly with other programs using the ODF formats.  Even if the bug-report doesn't get fixed quickly then at least there is a record of the problem.  If the problem affects enough people then it probably gets listed in the Release Notes. The question is how can we attract more devs and once they have started working on some parts of LO how can we attract them into fixing old problems rather than just going off to some other project?

2.  Formats are likely to grow and change in the future.  LO uses ODF 1.2 (Extended) and hopefully the departures from normal 1.2 are documented.  If you want to return to pure 1.2 then it's fairly easy to look up the ISO standard for that.  If you want to return to 1.1, or the 1.0 then again it's reasonably easy to look up the specs for those too.  Those specs closely match the way it's implemented in the various programs that use the format.

3.  You can find programs that still use the older formats.  Even LO can be switched to using older formats.  See
Tools - Options - "Load/Save" - General

4.  The devs have created a new format for LO that wraps up the 3 older formats, 1.2 (not extended), 1.1 and 1.0 and are calling it something like "1.2 Extended (compat)".  Files created using that format will be able to be read by legacy software that can only read 1.0 or only 1.1.  Presumably at some point we are going to find the options listed in
Tools - Options - "Load/Save" - General
to drop from 4 formats back down to 2.

The whole point of ODF is that even if or when programs do abandon a particular version of it that format is still readable because the format is implemented as specified.  The point is NOT to condemn us all to sticking with an unchanging format for the next few hundred years!  Change is inevitable.  Documenting those changes is part of the aim of ODF so that old files can be read.

This is going waaay off-topic again. 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#16

Hi, Tom, :slight_smile:

Hi :slight_smile:
You are making it sound more complicated than it really is.

No, not really.

Maurice's point is the abandonment of the horizontal rule breaks his older documents. Readable or not.

Steve's point is the breaking of old documents by removing the horizontal rule is the same type of practice for which people bad mouth MS.

<snip>

3. You can find programs that still use the older formats. Even LO can be switched to using older formats. See
Tools - Options - "Load/Save" - General

So, I guess if Maurice still wants to use the horizontal rule ( or any other deprecated features) he should abandon the current LO and use the older programs?

Pray tell, if you drop the horizontal rule from the new version, how do you load and save a document that has a horizontal rule?

4. The devs have created a new format for LO that wraps up the 3 older formats, 1.2 (not extended), 1.1 and 1.0 and are calling it something like "1.2 Extended (compat)". Files created using that format will be able to be read by legacy software that can only read 1.0 or only 1.1. Presumably at some point we are going to find the options listed in
Tools - Options - "Load/Save" - General
to drop from 4 formats back down to 2.

I submit that files created by the new format will only load correctly in the older software if the features in the new documents are supported in the old software.

The whole point of ODF is that even if or when programs do abandon a particular version of it that format is still readable because the format is implemented as specified. The point is NOT to condemn us all to sticking with an unchanging format for the next few hundred years! Change is inevitable. Documenting those changes is part of the aim of ODF so that old files can be read.

Readable does not equate to useable, which I think is Maurice's point.

Making the file readable by legacy software is rather a waste of time anyway, since the legacy software will eventually be broken by the evolution of the different OSes. Making older files with the legacy formats useable, not just readable, is a valid goal. That saves the user having to take the time to redo the document when it's a document that is still being used. Such as a template.

Even if the new software can't save in the old format, if you read the old format 100% correctly, then all you have to do is Save As in the new format. And the user gets on with life.

I would have to agree with Maurice, dropping the horizontal rule is dumb, especially if it now takes more work at the user's end to create one with HTML tags. One of the reasons for computers is to get rid of having to do repetitive things by the human. Have the computer do it.

For me, it's becoming a moot point. I'd rather pay for program(s) that do what I need without issues (never 100% possible, but I'm finding more possible than with LO) and constantly mess with free software. Thunderbird is the other program for me that is on very thin ice.

This is going waaay off-topic again.

True, but it's a good conversation. :slight_smile:

#17

Congrats Maurice if you were the one that marked-as-duplicate!

  Misplaced, I'm afraid!
(I raised it because I couidn't find the existing one...)

If Stuart did it then many thanks again to him for all his work.

  'twas indeed. Yes - many thanks, Stuart.

#18

In general we don't want users playing around with the stuff on top unless
they take a little time to get involved with QA - mainly because there are
nuances and more times than not users mark something incorrectly (like
updating the version when tested against a newer release which is not the
correct workflow) and then QA has to go and reverse everything and explain
policies.

For anyone interested in learning about QA stuff I recommend reading
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugTriage which breaks down workflow
relatively well.

And yes, I do invite everyone to participate in our triage
competition/event and to join our QA channel where you'll find quite a few
helpful people to get you started :slight_smile:

Hope that didn't come off as rough, just want to be clear that the top
section is meant to be for people who know what they are doing - and
learning requires individuals to be a little proactive. Plenty of people
(myself included) offer help all the time, definitely willing to meet
people half way if they want to join - you (Tom) know more than most that
we could surely use the help :slight_smile:

Warm Regards,
Joel

#19

Great news, Stuart! Good hunting....

#20

When I want to draw horizontal line I use:

Automatic lines in Writer
1. If you start a new line in a Writer text document by typing three or more
hyphen characters and press the Enter key, the characters are removed and
the previous paragraph gets a line as a bottom border.
To create a single line, type three or more hyphens (-), or underscores ( _
), and then press Enter. To create a double line, type three or more equal
signs (=), asterisks (*), tildes (~), or hash marks (#), and then press
Enter.
2. To remove an automatically drawn border, choose Format - Paragraph -
Borders and select no border.
3. To undo an automatic border replacement once, choose Edit - Undo.
4. To disable the automatic borders, choose Tools - AutoCorrect Options -
Options and clear Apply border.

The lines and other drawing objects that you insert in text are not defined
in HTML, and are therefore not exported directly into HTML format. Instead,
they are exported as graphics.

When the document is saved these lines are retained.
There is no need for the "Insert Horizontal Line" in the Insert menu.

Tink.