Bug 128025 - silent font replacement - no warning about missing font/glyph in a font, no information about font used for (automatic) replacement
Summary: silent font replacement - no warning about missing font/glyph in a font, no i...
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 96872
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: LibreOffice (show other bugs)
(earliest affected) release
Hardware: All All
: medium normal
Assignee: Not Assigned
Depends on:
Reported: 2019-10-08 14:06 UTC by Sebastian
Modified: 2020-04-27 13:40 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:

how it looks like on my system (28.71 KB, application/pdf)
2019-10-08 14:08 UTC, Sebastian
example (14.04 KB, application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text)
2019-10-08 14:09 UTC, Sebastian
how it looks like on my system (54.12 KB, application/pdf)
2019-10-24 10:49 UTC, Sebastian
example (12.71 KB, application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text)
2019-10-24 10:50 UTC, Sebastian

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Sebastian 2019-10-08 14:06:30 UTC
When I use a font, which doesn't contain all glyphs I use 
if a document uses a font, which is not installed on my system,
so LO usually shows all glyphs using another font.
But there is no warning about it, also I don't get any information about, which glyphs are replaced and which font is used instead.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Use the unicode letter number 1D4DB (html: &#120027 or &#x1D4DB )
2. Use DejaVu Sans
3. Use the same letter in a LO-math-formula in writer

Actual Results:
in Text LO uses an ugly glyph
in math-formula as a variable LO uses a nice glyph
in math-formula as text LO uses the ugly glyph see above

Expected Results:
a „warning“ (changing background color for glyphs with font replacement e.g.) and information about the font used instead the desired one (in formatting bar or as popup or ... or at least explaining in LO-help how to get this information)

also the possibility to define replacement suggestions would be nice

Reproducible: Always

User Profile Reset: No

Additional Info:
1.this is a bug for years already, 

2. the example given above is just for one glyph missing in one font, but similar things happen for whole texts using fonts, that aren't installed on a system,

3. the „nice“ glyph should be included in LO-math as setL (as setR, setN are defined)
Comment 1 Sebastian 2019-10-08 14:08:02 UTC
Created attachment 154838 [details]
how it looks like on my system
Comment 2 Sebastian 2019-10-08 14:09:28 UTC
Created attachment 154839 [details]
Comment 3 Sebastian 2019-10-24 10:47:37 UTC
Btw - the difference between math and writer is just the difference between regular and italic (variable is italic, text is regular)

But this doesn't help with the bug. I would like to know, which fonts are chosen to display missing glyphs/fonts in LO and I would like to get a „warning/information“ about that.
Comment 4 Sebastian 2019-10-24 10:49:55 UTC
Created attachment 155276 [details]
how it looks like on my system

added italic and bold glyphs in writer
Comment 5 Sebastian 2019-10-24 10:50:35 UTC
Created attachment 155277 [details]
Comment 6 Xisco Faulí 2019-11-25 15:52:05 UTC
Thank you for reporting the bug.
it seems you're using an old version of LibreOffice.
Could you please try to reproduce it with the latest version of LibreOffice
from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-fresh/ ?
I have set the bug's status to 'NEEDINFO'. Please change it back to
'UNCONFIRMED' if the bug is still present in the latest version.
Comment 7 Sebastian 2019-11-27 12:46:33 UTC
The same still in

Format text in a font, which is not installed on the system.

The text will be shown in another font. No information about the fact, neither that it was replaced nor by which font.

For missing glyphs in a certain font holds the same.
Comment 8 Buovjaga 2020-04-27 12:35:55 UTC
Let's ask UX team.

For how to control substitution see bug 56076 comment 19
Comment 9 V Stuart Foote 2020-04-27 13:40:30 UTC
dupe, but see also bug 61134

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 96872 ***