Math symbols not backward compatible?

[Alan J. Ross]

Hello, everybody.

I've already tried to search through the FAQs and the recent forum topics, with no success: so (and I beg your pardon in case I've missed the right topic and/or the correct FAQ) let me post my little doubt here...

My tiny problem goes as follows: I've recently made an upgrade (both in Linux and in Windows) from OO 2.4.2 to OO 3.0.1. Now, in both systems everything runs as finely as (I presume) it should, except for one thing: under Linux (and only there), every scientific document I had previously written with OO 2.4.2 isn't being correctly reformatted any longer, as for the mathematical symbols and fonts used in the formulas. What's worse, some special symbols (one example for all: 'rightarrow' / 'leftarrow') don't show at all any longer. An easy example is attached under my message. This very issue, on the contrary, doesn't show under Windows, where everything works fine.

Is this an already observed phenomenon, or am I the first who runs into it?
Moreover: am I possibly forgetting some subtle detail, or leaving untouched some advanced option regarding the typography and/or visualization of the fonts, which instead should be modified? Or is it simply a (possible) bug?

I add that I have installed by a

Code: Select all

rpm -ivh --prefix=/opt/openoffice *.rpm

procedure, which has given no problem at all, at least as long as we talk about installation issues and/or system complains (say, about a JRE which is not sufficently up-to-date, about some extension which is missing, and the like). I also add that this very same operation of "importing" math text previously written in an older OO release had been perfectly accomplished when upgrading from OO 1.x to OO 2.3.x (first) and 2.4.x (then).

I really can't understand...

Thank you very much for your help

f1.pdf

(21.26 KiB) Downloaded 450 times

[acknak]

Are you using the SuSE-pacakged OOo, or the packages downloaded from OO.org?

Novell makes significant changes in its releases of OOo, and their builds may not always be compatible with the OO.org builds. Hopefully, the newer Novell builds are backwards compatible with their previous releases, but there may be some glitches.

[Alan J. Ross]

The original, the original... strictly the original OO.org package

Just for the record, and by the way, right now I've completed a little 'experiment', which consisted in nothing more than going back to OO 2.4.2. Of course everything has reverted to its original state, that is, every file shows as it should, every font works as it is intended to do, etc... No corrupted files, then, nor damaged fonts and the like.

My opinion, then, is that the (or, better, my particular arrangement of operating system and) 3.0.1 release can't correctly visualize the original mathematical and/or symbolic fonts, and automatically tries to substitute them with something else, which however simply doesn't work

[acknak]

If it's not an OOo build difference, then I would be fairly sure that your document is using a font that is not available for OOo 3.0.1, or possibly a font that you use has changed.

Any chance you coulad attach a small sample document that shows the problem? You can use the "Upload Attachment" link (below the message entry area after you click "POST REPLY"). [Forum] How to attach a document here

A PDF or screenshot of the correct appearance would also be helpful.

[Alan J. Ross]

Well: sure.

The file f1.pdf I appended to my first message yesterday already did the service very well. In fact, those were (and are), respectively, the rendering (above) and the syntax (under, inside the box at the footer) of a little formula, written yesterday with the 3.0.1 Math editor and exported in the .pdf format. I'm going to repost it here, as attachment nr. 1.

That very same formula, slightly modified now with the 2.4.2 Math editor ( log(x) changed in log x , due to the fact that parentheses for the argument of log seem no longer necessary) and again exported in .pdf, is attachment nr. 2.

Attachment nr.3 is the original file, composed in 3.0.1, slightly modified in 2.4.2, perfectly rendered by the latter, and mangled (as it is shown in attachment nr. 1) by the former.

n1(3.0.1).pdf

(21.26 KiB) Downloaded 346 times

n2(2.4.2).pdf

(22.26 KiB) Downloaded 419 times

n3.odt

(12.19 KiB) Downloaded 317 times

[acknak]

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it has something to do with the font you've specified for the formula: "SUSE Serif". That's not a standard font--maybe it has some problem? Or maybe it's not available, and OOo has substituted some other font that doesn't have the specific symbols.

When I create a document including your formula, using the default fonts because I don't have "SUSE Serif", it works fine in both OOo 2.4.2 and 3.0.1. Actually, your "n3.odt" document works fine in both versions for me also, but OOo is substituting some other font for the missing "SUSE Serif"; I can only guess which one.

BTW, did you know you can also write the limit notation as: lim from {x toward infinity} ...?

[Alan J. Ross]

I think you're right

The issue has something to do with the correct rendering of fonts. There has to be some font, probably system-specific (but the problem doesn't seem to be related with SuSE Serif. I notice the same behavior with Nimbus Roman), which either causes a conflict with some other resource (other fonts / extensions / plugins / etc.) or simply can't be rendered at all.

The proof of this is in the fact that an absolutely mangled equation written in 3.0.1 under Linux, is perfectly rendered in 3.0.1 under Windows. Yes, of course some fonts are substituted (Nimbus Roman, for example), but the result is correct.

In upgrading from 2.4.2 to 3.0.1 I didn't even suspect the possibility of such kind of issues, simply because -- as I told yesterday -- the previous upgrade from 1.x to the 2.x family had been an absolutely smooth operation.

...er... what are those fonts you have been able to use without any rendering problem?

...and, yes: I knew it. But thank you anyway.
I used that notation because I needed the 'rightarrow'