Bug 77797

Reproducible, tested using Windows 8.1 with LibreOffice Version: 4.3.0.0.alpha1+
Build ID: f4a6837025a293312cbc43b9c527851362f11030
TinderBox: Win-x86@47-TDF, Branch:MASTER, Time: 2014-04-26_09:21:18

There might be some dupes around. Can't find them right now. But lets mark this as NEW right away.

Kind regards,
Joren

Created attachment 98033 [details]
Word 2013 left, LibreOffice right

This report (opening a DOCX) would seem related to bug 49785 (save ODT as DOCX). Opening the document linked in comment 0 under GNU/Linux highlights an improvement in the handling of the second main heading in recent versions:

- v4.1.6.2 Build ID: 40ff705089295be5be0aae9b15123f687c05b0a and v4.2.5.2 Build ID: 61cb170a04bb1f12e77c884eab9192be736ec5f5 both render the problem as shown in attachments.
- v4.3.0.2 Build ID: 14ed55896fdfcb93ff437b85c4f3e1923d2b1409 renders the identifier as expected.

Created attachment 102312 [details]
4.2.5 VS 4.3.0

Yes if you take just the numbered list entry 2 on page 6, it looks like its fine in 4.3.0, but if you take the numbered list entry 1 on page 2, you will see it in bold when its not supposed to be. Also noticed that bullet points that were purple in 4.2.5 are now gray in 4.3.0 (bug 80961).

(In reply to comment #4)
> but if you take the numbered list entry 1 on page 2, you will
> see it in bold when its not supposed to be. 

Here is a bit more information on this. The XML for list item #1 (page 2) is:

<w:p w:rsidR="0054188B" w:rsidRPr="0054188B" w:rsidRDefault="0054188B" w:rsidP="0054188B">
   <w:pPr>
      <w:keepNext/>
      <w:numPr>
         <w:ilvl w:val="0"/>
         <w:numId w:val="16"/>
      </w:numPr>
      <w:spacing w:before="480" w:after="160" w:line="420" w:lineRule="exact"/>
      <w:outlineLvl w:val="0"/>
      <w:rPr>
         <w:rFonts w:ascii="Segoe UI Light" w:eastAsia="Times New Roman" w:hAnsi="Segoe UI Light" w:cs="Times New Roman"/>
         <w:b/>
         <w:bCs/>
         <w:color w:val="68217A"/>
         <w:kern w:val="36"/>
         <w:sz w:val="36"/>
         <w:szCs w:val="20"/>
         <w:lang w:val="ru-RU"/>
      </w:rPr>
   </w:pPr>
   <w:r w:rsidRPr="0054188B">
      <w:rPr>
         <w:rFonts w:ascii="Segoe UI Light" w:eastAsia="Times New Roman" w:hAnsi="Segoe UI Light" w:cs="Times New Roman"/>
         <w:bCs/>
         <w:color w:val="68217A"/>
         <w:kern w:val="36"/>
         <w:sz w:val="36"/>
         <w:szCs w:val="20"/>
         <w:lang w:val="ru-RU"/>
      </w:rPr>
      <w:t>Выбор лицензии операционной системы Windows 8</w:t>
   </w:r>
</w:p>

The w:b (Bold) element in the first run properties (w:rPr) definition for the paragraph properties (w:pPr) is likely the reason why the identifier in this case is displaying in bold. The w:bCs (Complex Script Bold) elements do not apply as Cyrillic (U+0400-04FF) is in the High ANSI, rather than Complex Script, font group, under OOXML. 

The next identical-level list item (#2) on page 6 of the document does not have this bold element definition in the XML. The example in ISO/IEC 29500:2012, §17.3.2.7, p.273 tends to indicate that a bold rendering in the case of list item #1 (page 2) is accurate.

> Also noticed that bullet points that were purple in 4.2.5 
> are now gray in 4.3.0 (bug 80961).

This appears to be much the same issue i.e., they are now being rendered as defined in the XML. I will respond separately in that bug. 

Both these issues appear to illustrate that no currently available version of MS Office is compliant with (i.e., interprets correctly) OOXML Strict. What MS Word renders on screen cannot be taken as "correct". Only what is defined in ISO/IEC 29500 is correct, and even that is open to interpretation.

Jay, it is possible that my prior analysis (comment 5) of the bold list identifier merely indicates why it is now appearing in bold (the <w:b/> element). The underlying reason though may actually be a regression in handling the overriding character style (if there is one) for this identifier, as indicated by Michael Stahl in bug 80961. In this case I can't locate a corresponding character style.

Despite what it looks like I am actually trying to help, although I am not always correct. Apologies if this is the case here.

Created attachment 102698 [details]
file with bold number list

Owen, no need for apologize as we are all trying to make LibO better and sometimes we arent able to fully get our messages across when we type. :)

I did some more checking and both Kingsoft Writer and Calligra Words show it in non-bold. I opened the file in word 2013 and selected the number list and added bold to it, which does effect both number list entries, and have attached it. Hopefully this will make it easier to figure out.

(In reply to comment #7)
> I opened the file in word 2013 and selected the number list and
> added bold to it, which does effect both number list entries, and have
> attached it. Hopefully this will make it easier to figure out.

Thanks Jay. The key change seems to be this diff in word/numbering.xml:

1378c1378,1379
<         <w:b w:val="0"/>
---
>         <w:b/>
>         <w:bCs w:val="0"/>

Line numbers 1378-79 indicate <w:abstractNum w:abstractNumId="20"> which I believe is a character style, although of a different type?