Description: As discussed and documented and the following link, the rendering in LO of the 'prime' symbol is very unsatisfactory especially compared to latex. https://ask.libreoffice.org/t/how-to-type-x-prime-and-subscript/100384/6 This leads to the messy hack of x^{ font fixed size*1.2{,}}_1 when it should be enough to write x'_1 or x^prime_1 I made a workaround by adding %prime to the symbol catalog, and it's a bit smoother/easier, but then requires a customisation of each LO install on which the document is being edited. I think a good solution for the prime symbol is needed as part of the base installation of LO. Steps to Reproduce: 1. add a formula x'_1 x^'_2 2. render Actual Results: note that x'_1 renders with the subscript 1 too far to the right, while x^'_2 renders with the the prime too far up and too small. Expected Results: some standard syntax is needed in LO that gives a properly positioned prime symbol Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: As noted above, adding the symbol Ux2032 from MathJax Main (specifically this font -- it has an oversized prime that behaves correctly when used as a superscript) solves this problem but is nasty because it requires customisation in order to achieve a commonly needed/standard feature.
Addition of a %prime to the 'Special' symbol set is reasonable. Would avoid users needing to repeatedly perform Unicode conversion of U+2032, or needing to make their own addition to the symbol set. Not sure, but could we use a font other than 'OpenSymbol'? The U+2032 glyph in Liberation Serif looks better against default font for 'Variable' nodes. Seems easy hackable.
Just a couple that double prime and triple prime are also commonly used in certain contexts. It seems there could be pitfalls there to consider: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42723131/second-derivative-in-asciimath
(In reply to john from comment #2) > Just a couple that double prime and triple prime are also commonly used in > certain contexts. It seems there could be pitfalls there to consider: >... s/couple/comment/ Sure, suppose we could also provide %doubleprime against U+2033 and even %tripleprime against U+2034, but diminishing returns for common use.