User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:47.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/47.0 Build Identifier: Font size is bigger than expected. It's a regression introduced by https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=798a563db133ebed3876c245459d90ef54ee7c9a Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Open attachment #126383 [details] 2. Check font size in most of the slides. Actual Results: Font size is bigger than expected. It looks like it's bold. Expected Results: https://bug-attachments.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=126384 Reset User Profile?No
Created attachment 127613 [details] slide 7 on import from pptx Confirmed on Windows 10 Pro v1607 64-bit en-US with Version: 5.2.1.2 (x64) Build ID: 31dd62db80d4e60af04904455ec9c9219178d620 CPU Threads: 8; OS Version: Windows 6.19; UI Render: GL; Locale: en-US (en_US); Calc: group
Hmm, seems the formulas are recorded in OLE objects as WMF--and the WMF (place held by the 𝚹's in the clip) are badly corrupted during import. At least in Windows, lines of text on the slides seem not too far off from how they render in Office 2007 Powerpoint. Is this a "simpler" font fall back issue (but also with WMF issues)? Also, find this .pptx crashes current master while opening with a general input/output error. Version: 5.3.0.0.alpha0+ Build ID: 4c70a1a6666a079872b8f1966bd398e924dc1d1a CPU Threads: 8; OS Version: Windows 6.19; UI Render: GL; TinderBox: Win-x86@42, Branch:master, Time: 2016-09-22_06:54:24 Locale: en-US (en_US); Calc: CL
Adding Cc: to Miklos Vajna
Xisco, I'm not sure this is a regression at all. Let me attach screenshots of slide 7 from MSO, the old LO import result and the new LO import result. Can we agree that the new import result matches the MSO one, not the old one? ;-)
Created attachment 127750 [details] MSO import result of slide 7.
Created attachment 127751 [details] Old LO import result of slide 7.
Created attachment 127752 [details] New LO import result of slide 7.
Created attachment 127836 [details] 5.3.0.0.alpha0+ Hi Miklos, This is how I see it in Version: 5.3.0.0.alpha0+ Build ID: ae3ec79354f7b4967e736c6a4cd7c08fc52e2b7d CPU Threads: 4; OS Version: Linux 4.2; UI Render: default; Locale: ca-ES (ca_ES.UTF-8); Calc: group
Yes, that looks *correct*, I think. The nominal font size is the same in all cases, but if you measure it with a ruler (so character escapement is also taken into account), then you can see that the MSO, LO new and your screeenshot has the same font size, while the LO old has a smaller one. So it sounds like there is nothing to fix here, the change is a good one, not a regression. Or did I miss something?
Resolving as no a but based on the above + IRC discussion.
I meant to write "but a bug". ;-)