Description: I copy-pasted Unicode characters ¹ ² ³ ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ ⁷ ⁸ ⁹ ⁺ ⁻ to a new document in LibreOffice Writer and I noticed that the characters are not the same height and location compared to each other. The problem looks different with different fonts. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Start LibreOffice Writer. 2. Create a new document. 3. Copy-paste Unicode superscript characters ¹ ² ³ ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ ⁷ ⁸ ⁹ ⁺ ⁻ to the document. Actual Results: Numbers 6 and 9 are in incorrect positions when using the default Liberation Serif font. With Arial and Times New Roman fonts numbers 1, 2 and 3 are in incorrect positions. Expected Results: All Unicode superscript characters should have the same size and position. Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: Yes Additional Info: Version: 6.1.5.2 Build ID: 90f8dcf33c87b3705e78202e3df5142b201bd805 CPU threads: 16; OS: Mac OS X 10.11.6; UI render: default; Locale: fi-FI (en.UTF-8); Calc: group threaded
Created attachment 149362 [details] Superscript characters in a new document Example document with the problem.
Will depend on font having glyphs for all UCS codepoints. Select the string of superscript characters and change font from the Liberation Serif is missing U+2076 SUPERSCRIPT SIX and U+2079 SUPERSCRIPT NINE, so font fallback occurs. Arial and Time New Roman are correct, where the fonts contain the full set of glyphs.
Created attachment 149374 [details] screenshot
See the screenshot I just added. How do you interpret that?
Created attachment 149376 [details] Sample document with paragraph font correctly assigned, superscript correct (In reply to tomi.hasa from comment #4) > See the screenshot I just added. How do you interpret that? Incorrect font assignment to the paragraph? And, if I correct attachment 149362 [details] I get the expected handling of Arial and Times New Roman.
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #5) >... And, if I correct attachment Sorry, too harsh. s/correct/modify When I open the attachment--as is--it renders Superscript glyphs of both the Arial and the Times New Roman correctly. Just the Liberation Serif, with missing SIX and NINE glyphs uses a fallback.
Created attachment 149377 [details] Same document but with font names mentioned
Created attachment 149378 [details] Screenshot of my second version of the document with font names
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #6) > (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #5) > >... And, if I correct attachment > > Sorry, too harsh. s/correct/modify > > When I open the attachment--as is--it renders Superscript glyphs of both the > Arial and the Times New Roman correctly. Just the Liberation Serif, with > missing SIX and NINE glyphs uses a fallback. My problem exists: I made a second version of the document with font names added. See my screenshot of the second version.
OK, so played with this on an macOS system (10.13.6 High Sierra). It *is* a font fallback issue on macOS as well. Apples deployed Arial (v 5.01.2x), and Times New Roman (v 5.01.3x) do not include coverage of Unicode glyphs. Both only cover SUPERSCRIPT ONE, TWO, THREE and both look to be receiving font fallback to system Lucinda Grande. => NOB.
Created attachment 149386 [details] sting of SUPERSCRIPT numbers various fonts on macOS this clip from 6.2.0 on macOS suggests fonts missing glyphs are getting font fallback from system font Lucinda Grande
@Khaled - are you in agreement here regards this being NOB? We've no control of OS font fallback for missing glyphs, right?
Created attachment 149395 [details] Word version of the document Word version of the document is fine.
Created attachment 149396 [details] Screenshot of the Word version of the document
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #12) > @Khaled - are you in agreement here regards this being NOB? We've no control > of OS font fallback for missing glyphs, right? Word version of the same copy-pasted text is fine. See the attachment and the screenshot I just added. I have Microsoft Office 2011's Word.
(In reply to tomi.hasa from comment #15) > (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #12) > > @Khaled - are you in agreement here regards this being NOB? We've no control > > of OS font fallback for missing glyphs, right? > > Word version of the same copy-pasted text is fine. See the attachment and > the screenshot I just added. I have Microsoft Office 2011's Word. I opened the Word version of the document with LibreOffice and the Unicode characters look fine. Amazing!
Created attachment 149397 [details] Fixed version of the Word document with fonts
Created attachment 149398 [details] Screenshot of the fixed version of the Word document
(In reply to tomi.hasa from comment #16) > (In reply to tomi.hasa from comment #15) > > (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #12) > > > @Khaled - are you in agreement here regards this being NOB? We've no control > > > of OS font fallback for missing glyphs, right? > > > > Word version of the same copy-pasted text is fine. See the attachment and > > the screenshot I just added. I have Microsoft Office 2011's Word. > > I opened the Word version of the document with LibreOffice and the Unicode > characters look fine. Amazing! I forgot to change the fonts to the Word version of the document, so I uploaded a fixed version of the Word document and a screenshot also. Yep, seems like a font bug with OS X 10.11 (El Capitan).