https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163329
V Stuart Foote <vsfo...@libreoffice.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |vsfo...@libreoffice.org
--- Comment #5 from V Stuart Foote <vsfo...@libreoffice.org> ---
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #4)
> (In reply to خالد حسني from comment #1)
>
> Hmm... Why is the sqrt stem even a glyph at all? That doesn't sound right.
It is not, it is a drawn member of a node.
>
> But be that as it may - if a glyph is _missing_, I'm fine with being given
> an error message, or the glyph being replaced with an empty rectangle, or
> something along those lines. But why would a flipped glyph - another glyph -
> be used instead?
The sm Formula editor composes into nodes--for roots stems are drawn as needed
and are appended to the radical to create the notation for a root. That allows
the radical to vary in size as needed to fit the node.
With the introduction of RTL support to sm (and refactoring needed to allow use
of fonts other than OpenSymbol) the stems are correctly reversed / positioned
for RTL--but if the radical glyph (U+221A) doesn't support the reversed
alternate, the node is visually wrong, but correct in RTL size and placement.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
