Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 74858

Incorrect vertical alignment of "nested" matrices using mline

Last modified: 2013-08-07 14:54:45 UTC

Hello! Type for example: left ( matrix{1#2##3#4} mline matrix{5 over 7##6} right ) In the first line the vertical alignment is correct. In the second line it fails. The vertical line is used for example to write an extended matrix. So in my example "3", "4" and "6" should be on the same height.

Created attachment 43359 [details] Example

MRU->TL: it looks, that the parser does not recognize, that these two matrices are not really independent from each other.

Dear developers, please consider this issue for 2.4. Thanks a lot.

Any progress?

Well, if you look at the targert (OOo later) - No. We are currently working on OOo 3.0 issues.

Any chance of targeting this issue for 3.2? Thanks.

Thomas, 21 votes for this issue. Can you correct problem in 3.2? Thanks, Helen.

This sounds much more easy than it is. Even the reference product does not align those lines. What for example should be done if the right side would be a 4 row matrix/stack? What lines should align? 1st left with 1st right and 2nd left with 4 4th right? Or should it be 1st left with 2nd right and 2nd left with 3rd right? Coming to details there are many questions to be solved about this one. The most easiest way would be to introduce something new like "heightof" that takes the height of its argument but no with. With something like that it will be up to the user to make this work, e.g. by writing a formula like left ( matrix{ heightof{ 5 over 7} 1#2##3#4} mline matrix{5 over 7##6} right ) Anyone knows if MathML provides something like this? It would be easier to argue implementing it if MathML has the same. The first solution is probably out of the question since it will take much more time. And for that you need to discuss the topic with QA and I would need approval to spend a larger amount of time with maybe questionable results. Thus less me first ask: would you be content with the second way, i.e. introducing something like "heightof"? And as said references of similar formatting in MathML would be helpful in argumentation as well.

i mean 21 vote is quite enable to repair this bug...

tl->bigandy: that would apply if we had not limited resources for developing. As it is one always has to weigh one issue against others and make decisions about the ones to be fixed... And be reminded that most of us need to work in more than one project.

IMHO "heightof" is a good idea since it could be generally useful as an alternative for "phantom" in cases where width must not be affected. Thus it can help to solve not only this particular problem but other not-yet-revealed problems too. For now, the problem could be worked around like this: left ( matrix{1#2 phantom{{}over{}}##3#4 ``} mline matrix{5 over 7##6} right )

Solving this problem is really important. Working with matrices will be easier.