Issue 28686 - Incorrect layout for fixed-position elements in RTF document.
Summary: Incorrect layout for fixed-position elements in RTF document.
Status: CONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: Writer
Classification: Application
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: OOo 1.1
Hardware: PC All
: P4 Trivial with 1 vote (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-05-04 01:25 UTC by bkline
Modified: 2017-05-20 11:25 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Attachments
Tiny repro document showing incorrect layout for content following \absw keyword. (6.67 KB, application/rtf)
2004-05-04 01:29 UTC, bkline
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description bkline 2004-05-04 01:25:47 UTC
OOo is not using the available vertical space following an object tagged with
the \absw kenword.

We have form letters which we generate as RTF documents, with a letterhead at
the top of the first page consisting of a small logo, with several lines of text
positioned opposite the logo to its right.  The desired layout looks something
like the following:

+------+
|      | DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES  Public Health Service
| LOGO |---------------------------------------------------------------------
|      |                                        National Institutes of Health
+------+                                        National Cancer Institute

Rest of document ....

Although these documents were not created with any Word Processing software,
Microsoft Word (all versions we've tried) lays out the documents correctly (both
print and display).

OOo 1.1 for some reason is ignoring most of the available space to the right of
the logo, and the document comes out looking some this:

+------+
|      |
| LOGO |
|      |
+------+ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES  Public Health Service
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        National Institutes of Health
                                        National Cancer Institute

Rest of document ....

Earlier versions (1.1 beta2, for example), mangled the layout also, but in a
different way, along these lines:

+------+
|      |---------------------------------------------------------------------
| LOGO |                                        National Institutes of Health
|      |                                        National Cancer Institute
+------+
DEPARTM
ENT OF     Rest of document ....
HEALTH &
HUMAN 
SERVICES

Public
Health
Service

I will attach a repro case to the issue.
Comment 1 bkline 2004-05-04 01:29:11 UTC
Created attachment 14955 [details]
Tiny repro document showing incorrect layout for content following \absw keyword.
Comment 2 michael.ruess 2004-05-04 11:24:47 UTC
MRU->MM: the graphic should be inside a frame. This frame is imported without
any content (even no empty paragraph) at the top of the header.
Comment 3 bkline 2004-05-04 19:25:11 UTC
I notice that this issue's priority has been dropped to P4.  The guidelines for
selecting a priority for an issue list the following criteria (excerpted):

 Priority 2: Basic functionality is not working correctly
 Priority 3: single function doesn't work the way it is supposed to be, 
             but none of the P2 criteria apply
 Priority 4: less annoying issues:
             - Typos
             - non-intuitive way to achieve "standard" issues
             - bugs that are easy to workround

I realize I'm excerpting here, listing only those criteria I judged applicable
to the decision I made about the priority I originally assigned when I filed the
issue.

Also, I'm not interested in quibbling about whether the ability to lay out the
document correctly should be considered "basic functionality" (though I don't
think anyone is claiming that the software is "working correctly"). 
Nevertheless, I am having difficulty understanding how this issue fits P4. 
Surely we're not talking about a typo here, right?  So presumably this is a bug
which is easy to work around.  If so, could some kind soul show me what the
workaround is?  If not, I'd be very grateful if you could shed some light on how
the priority guidelines are applied (hopefully with an explanation which is
*not* along the lines of "well, we don't really follow the published guidelines
....").

Thanks very much.
Comment 4 Martin Hollmichel 2004-05-28 14:54:30 UTC
according to the announcement on releases
(http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=releases&msgNo=7503) this issue
will be re-targeted to OOo Later.
Comment 5 martin_maher 2005-05-05 10:46:14 UTC
mmaher->flr: Your's methinks
Comment 6 bkline 2005-10-21 17:06:48 UTC
Bug is still present in the 2.0 production release.  Could I please get a
response to my questions about priority assignments?
Comment 7 Mathias_Bauer 2006-08-30 15:16:02 UTC
reassigning to hbrinkm
Comment 8 bkline 2008-12-24 18:56:26 UTC
Still broken in the 3.0 production release.  Could I please get a response to my
questions about priority assignments?
Comment 9 Marcus 2017-05-20 11:24:51 UTC
Reset assigne to the default "issues@openoffice.apache.org".
Comment 10 Marcus 2017-05-20 11:25:52 UTC
Reset assigne to the default "issues@openoffice.apache.org".