Issue 3780 - Vector, Tilde, bar, etc displays the symbol too high with respect letter
Summary: Vector, Tilde, bar, etc displays the symbol too high with respect letter
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Math
Classification: Application
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: 641
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 Trivial with 1 vote (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: thomas.lange
QA Contact: issues@sw
URL:
Keywords:
: 2890 3741 3967 4129 4524 5414 5885 6536 6629 6793 7120 7319 8389 8520 8780 9002 9282 11031 13446 13469 13721 14457 20261 (view as issue list)
Depends on:
Blocks: 3017 4129 8429 13423
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2002-04-01 21:22 UTC by amelcon
Modified: 2013-08-07 14:55 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

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


Attachments
Output of equation editor (23.02 KB, image/gif)
2002-04-08 21:33 UTC, amelcon
no flags Details
Output of equation editor (4.18 KB, image/gif)
2002-04-22 13:43 UTC, Unknown
no flags Details
Font size also not correct with bar on top of character. (94.23 KB, image/gif)
2002-04-26 19:15 UTC, Unknown
no flags Details
Fix for OOo101 Win32. Rename the old file then copy this one in OOo101\program\ (372.00 KB, patch)
2002-10-29 17:55 UTC, Unknown
no flags Details | Diff
Sorry, use this one for the fix instead. Not an official fix. It's just for those who cant wait. (372.00 KB, application/octet-stream)
2002-10-29 18:02 UTC, Unknown
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description amelcon 2002-04-01 21:22:22 UTC
If you try to write a vector (arrow above a letter) in the equation editor,
the arrow is placed much too high with respect the letter. The code I use
in the equation editor is:
  vec{ab}

the same is happening with tilde, bar (probably others?). However it
works OK with wide tildes such as widevec and widetilde.
This problem does not show up in staroffice5.2
Comment 1 thomas.lange 2002-04-08 08:54:45 UTC
Can you please add a GIF image of the output for the following 
formula as attachment to the bug?

vec ab widevec ab vec (ab) widevec (ab) newline
vec ab widevec ab  ( vec ab ) ( widevec ab )

This formula renders in 5.2, StarOffice 6.0 and OpenOffice 641 the 
same way and the way it used to be...

The difference in the positioning in the first and second line comes 
from if the 'vec' keyword is before or after the opening '('.
Since the '(' is rendered somewhat higher than the 'b' the the 
difference in height is correct when the 'vec' is put before the '('.

Another difference that may be relevant is that in 5.2 other fonts 
were used. For example the default font was 'Times New Roman' where 
now it is 'Timmons'. 
Though it is OK for both fonts when I checked in OpenOffice and the 
current version.

I can not see a difference in the behaviour to the 5.2...

Comment 2 thomas.lange 2002-04-08 08:56:33 UTC
TL: set to 'works for me'
Comment 3 amelcon 2002-04-08 21:33:22 UTC
Created attachment 1347 [details]
Output of equation editor
Comment 4 thomas.lange 2002-04-09 09:55:27 UTC
TL: Occurs in OO641D on Linux and not in OO641C on Windows.

TL->HDU: To you in order to check if 'GetGlyphBoundRect' is working 
correct under Linux.

Comment 5 thomas.lange 2002-04-09 09:56:59 UTC
TL: assigned temporarily to HDU. Seems to be Linux specific.
Comment 6 hdu@apache.org 2002-04-10 13:39:16 UTC
Seems to be a problem in the OpenSymbol font. The problem
does not happen when the StarSymbol font is installed.

HDU->IH: the extents of the arrow-symbol seem to be
  different from the one used in StarSymbol. TL says
  he uses the array symbol at codepoint 0xE098.
Comment 7 nospam 2002-04-15 10:02:58 UTC
I will have a look at the font data.
Comment 8 nospam 2002-04-17 14:11:45 UTC
It seems that the bounding box in OpenSymbol for character Unicode
E08C has almost the same values as that character in StarSymbol font -
so we (IH and HDU) think the problem must be somewhere else in the
code - but we are still investigating...
Comment 9 michael.ruess 2002-04-22 11:56:51 UTC
*** Issue 3967 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 10 michael.ruess 2002-04-22 11:57:17 UTC
Only a short comment: The problem is not only Linux-related. I also
have the problem on Win32 when the Opensymbol font is used. The
StarSymbol font does not show the problem.
Comment 11 michael.ruess 2002-04-22 13:33:01 UTC
*** Issue 2890 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 12 michael.ruess 2002-04-22 13:37:36 UTC
As you can see from issue# 2890, the problem also happens with
functions like "breve a", "bar a" and so on...
Comment 13 Unknown 2002-04-22 13:43:26 UTC
Created attachment 1419 [details]
Output of equation editor
Comment 14 Unknown 2002-04-22 13:48:49 UTC
as you can see from the picture (formular.gif) I have the same problem on Win32 with 
oo641c an Win2000 SP2. See issue 2890 where I listed all wrong renderd formulas.
I 
don't know, if I use OpenSymbol or the StarSymbol font, both are installed, but I don't 
know how to switch between them

(sorry for my bad english!)
Comment 15 Unknown 2002-04-22 13:54:54 UTC
Now I use OO641d, the problem is the same
Comment 16 michael.ruess 2002-04-24 09:15:54 UTC
*** Issue 3741 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 17 Unknown 2002-04-26 19:15:34 UTC
Created attachment 1494 [details]
Font size also not correct with bar on top of character.
Comment 18 Unknown 2002-04-26 19:20:37 UTC
When I import StarOffice 5.2 formulas, not only is the spacing of the
bar too high but the font is reduced in size. It seems that the
bounding box remains the same and the font is reduced to fit. See
attachment.

One other comment, while I was investigating this I noticed one time
that changing the font size had no effect on the formula. However
after I closed the editting box a different formula changed size.
Comment 19 nospam 2002-04-29 09:54:59 UTC
Because I did not find any font relating problems I will assign this
one to HDU.
Comment 20 amelcon 2002-05-08 20:42:35 UTC
Just to inform that I have tested OpenOffice1.0 and
the behavior is the same as with release 641
Comment 21 hdu@apache.org 2002-05-16 10:31:54 UTC
need to analyze difference between StarSymbol and OpenSymbol 
Comment 22 gach 2002-05-22 00:48:20 UTC
Is there a workaround available for this ? Would installing StarSymbol
solve this ? How can on do that ?

We'd like to use OO in the university but vectors are important.

Thanks
Comment 23 hdu@apache.org 2002-05-22 09:17:14 UTC
Understanding and fixing the problem with Opensymbol will finally 
solve the problem, but installing StarSymbol is be a good workaround. 
 
Unfortunately StarSymbol is not a free font. Since you are at a 
university I suggest to get StarOffice, which has a lot of good 
fonts and as far as I know it is almost free for schools/universities/... 
 
Comment 24 lohmaier 2002-06-16 14:21:12 UTC
*** Issue 5885 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 25 hdu@apache.org 2002-07-29 12:39:52 UTC
*** Issue 6536 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 26 hdu@apache.org 2002-07-29 12:44:27 UTC
*** Issue 4129 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 27 hdu@apache.org 2002-07-29 13:44:49 UTC
*** Issue 6629 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 28 djago 2002-07-29 16:21:15 UTC
I have the same problem, but wide doesn't work like you said. My
widevec is put at the same height than vec (too high).
Comment 29 gach 2002-07-30 00:23:07 UTC
Is this fixed on 1.0.1 ? CVS ?
Comment 30 harald.schilly 2002-07-30 08:14:15 UTC
> Is this fixed on 1.0.1 ?
no, it is not. the additional signs are too high above the letters. i 
use OOo 1.0.1 (de) on Win2k
Comment 31 hdu@apache.org 2002-07-30 15:56:08 UTC
As we (TL+HDU) found out the problem is that StarMath doesn't 
know that the GSL layers transparently map OpenSymbol to 
StarSymbol and is confused by getting the "wrong" font.  
Comment 32 thomas.lange 2002-07-31 06:55:32 UTC
Phew... I'm glad this one could be reproduced now.
It should be fixed in the next OpenOffice build.
(BTW: the reason is the same as for #i3017)

We could never reproduce this because it only happens if you do _not_ 
have installed a StarSymbol font along with OpenSymbol font. Which is 
unfortunately usually not the case here...

As workaround until the new version is build a renaming of the font 
from "OpenSymbol" to "StarSymbol" should work.
Comment 33 hdu@apache.org 2002-07-31 09:50:18 UTC
> As workaround until the new version is build a renaming of 
> the font from "OpenSymbol" to "StarSymbol" should work. 
 
This workaround doesn't really work, because the font name 
is not created from the file name, but from the font files 
contents. On unix platforms patching the fonts.dir file in 
share/fonts/truetype to use an StarSymbol XLFD does help, 
but I'd rather have the real solution in the SM library. 
 
If this isn't possible soon I suggest to binary patch the 
SM library with replacing occurences of "StarSymbol" to 
"OpenSymbol". 
 
Comment 34 thomas.lange 2002-08-12 09:53:35 UTC
Reopened in order to assign to QA.
Comment 35 thomas.lange 2002-08-12 09:56:15 UTC
TL->MRU: To you for testing in OO.
Comment 36 michael.ruess 2002-08-12 16:24:44 UTC
Tested it with internal 643r. Fix will be available with next
OpenOffice 643 release.
Comment 37 michael.ruess 2002-08-22 13:46:28 UTC
*** Issue 6793 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 38 michael.ruess 2002-08-30 11:15:51 UTC
*** Issue 7319 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 39 prgmgr 2002-09-15 20:24:09 UTC
*** Issue 5414 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 40 prgmgr 2002-09-15 20:49:18 UTC
*** Issue 7120 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 41 michael.ruess 2002-10-02 08:30:16 UTC
*** Issue 4524 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 42 Unknown 2002-10-17 05:41:36 UTC
As suggested by "Herbert Duerr 2002-07-31" I replaced all the 
instances of StarSymbol to OpenSymbol in the binary file. I did it 
for sm641mi.dll from OOs 1.0.1, Win2k. I confirm it fixed the issue. 
Comment 43 Unknown 2002-10-17 05:46:02 UTC
*** Issue 8389 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 44 lohmaier 2002-10-20 12:57:12 UTC
*** Issue 8520 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 45 prgmgr 2002-10-29 02:36:32 UTC
*** Issue 8780 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 46 Unknown 2002-10-29 17:55:51 UTC
Created attachment 3415 [details]
Fix for OOo101 Win32. Rename the old file then copy this one in OOo101\program\
Comment 47 Unknown 2002-10-29 18:02:32 UTC
Created attachment 3416 [details]
Sorry, use this one for the fix instead. Not an official fix. It's just for those who cant wait.
Comment 48 harald.schilly 2002-10-29 19:04:12 UTC
@mklein:
thx for the fix, it works flawless! (OOo1.0.1_de@Win2k)
Comment 49 michael.ruess 2002-11-14 09:29:01 UTC
closed.
Comment 50 michael.ruess 2002-11-14 09:29:25 UTC
*** Issue 9002 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 51 prgmgr 2002-12-04 21:37:22 UTC
*** Issue 9282 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 52 michael.ruess 2002-12-18 09:39:39 UTC
*** Issue 10167 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 53 michael.ruess 2002-12-18 09:42:42 UTC
*** Issue 10178 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 54 Unknown 2003-01-26 01:15:15 UTC
I just tried OOo 1.0.2 for Linux and the problem is still there
Comment 55 Unknown 2003-01-26 02:15:54 UTC
OK I seem to have fixed the problem.

I looked for occurences of StarSymbol with

cd /usr/OpenOffice.org1.0.2/program
grep StarSymbol *

Binary file libsd641li.so matches
Binary file libsm641li.so matches
Binary file libsvt641li.so matches
Binary file libsvx641li.so matches
Binary file libsw641li.so matches
Binary file libvcl641li.so matches
Binary file libxo641li.so matches

Then I piped each of these files through 
sed s/StarSymbol/OpenSymbol/
(keeping copies of the originals of course)

and it now works for me. 
Comment 56 michael.ruess 2003-01-27 09:13:54 UTC
True, fix is not part of OO 1.0.2. It went into the 643 branch, which
is a Milestone on the way to OO 1.1.
Comment 57 michael.ruess 2003-01-29 09:03:22 UTC
*** Issue 11031 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 58 lohmaier 2003-04-18 22:23:16 UTC
*** Issue 13446 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 59 lohmaier 2003-04-18 22:25:27 UTC
*** Issue 13469 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 60 khendricks 2003-04-23 20:26:51 UTC
Hi, 
 
Adding myself to CC on this (and reopening it).  
 
 Is there any reason the right fix (and not hacks to binary files) can't be simply added to 
the OOO_STABLE_1 series.  That tree is now open again. 
 
If someone can poitn me at the patches in StarMath that fixed this I would be happy to 
backport them to OOO_STABLE_1 so that this gets fixed proeprly in time for OOo 
1.0.4. 
 
This really is an issue that shuld have been fixed in time for OOo 1.0.3. 
 
Please let me know what files to diff or the revisions to examine, and would be happy to 
follow through getting this fixed for 1.0.4. 
 
You can even re-assign this issue to me if you want (once the needed fixes have 
somehow been identified!). 
 
Any help here would be greatly appreciated. 
 
Thanks, 
 
Kevin 
 
Comment 61 michael.ruess 2003-04-24 13:13:09 UTC
MRU->TL: Please also integrate the fix into the OO 1.0.4 branch. Kevin
is right, it is a very annoying issue and we still recieve feedback on
this. Thank you!
Comment 62 lohmaier 2003-05-10 20:29:18 UTC
*** Issue 13721 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 63 thomas.lange 2003-05-12 10:04:27 UTC
Updating to 
 starmath/inc/types.hxx    1.4
 starmath/source/rect.cxx  1.9
for 641 based OO versions should solve the problem.
Comment 64 thomas.lange 2003-05-12 10:16:40 UTC
Target now OO 1.0.4
Comment 65 thomas.lange 2003-05-15 11:37:04 UTC
Should be fixed in OOo 1.04.

Comment 66 michael.ruess 2003-05-15 13:28:36 UTC
*** Issue 14457 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 67 vd 2003-07-23 18:22:14 UTC
Is there any official patch for 1.0.2 and 1.0.3 ?

//VD
Comment 68 thomas.lange 2003-07-31 08:41:14 UTC
Already integrated.
Comment 69 lohmaier 2003-09-28 10:40:54 UTC
*** Issue 20261 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***