When an auto-generated table of contents is exported to XHTML, the exported table of contents still has page numbers. There seems no point as the exported document is not paginated. Also, in the original ToC the page numbers are right justified and separated from the section name by a row of periods. In the exported ToC, the page numbers are on the right but not justified. They are separated from the section names by about 4 spaces. I suggest just not exporting the page numbers.
Mark: Could you please attach an example document and the exact steps on how to reproduce this problem? Otherwise it is very difficult to confirm this bug. After attaching the requested information, please set this bug to UNCONFIRMED. Thanks :)
Created attachment 82003 [details] .odt containing ToC from large document Here is a .odt to reproduce the issue. It has only a ToC cut from a larger document whose source I cannot post in this public forum. Export this document via File->Export, selecting xhtml as the output format. Observe that the exported HTML file still has page numbers on each ToC line, though without the "..." leading and right justification of the original.
Mark I tried reproducing this. Open your test file in 4.2.0.2, but when trying to "Save as..." I see no XHTML option, but only HTML. So exporting to HTML keeps the page numbers. But since that might be intentional I'm adding NeedAdvice. NEW since confirmed behavior.
Let's go with valid enhancement request.
The XHTML option is in the dialog that appears after you select Export... from the File menu. [Last time I tried Save As... HTML, the result had even more problems than the XHTML export so I stopped using it.] Both Export... XHTML and Save As... HTML options export the document as a single long HTML page so page numbers make no sense and have no meaning or usefulness. This is a BUG not an enhancement request so I have changed it back.
@FOSS - NeedAdvice is only for UNCONFIRMED bugs, we just move to NEW if it's confirmed, then, if a dev ever looks at it, they can investigate. We should do as much of the heavy lifting as possible -- especially as here where it's an enhancement request. NeedAdvice pings our top devs to look into it, here that's probably not needed :) Enhancement (behaves as intended, but valid request to change behaviour) Low (probably not going to impact many people at all but a logical request and probably an easy hack)
In order to limit the confusion between ProposedEasyHack and EasyHack and to make queries much easier we are changing ProposedEasyHack to NeedsDevEval. Thank you and apologies for the noise
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.