Created attachment 74461 [details] An outputted page showing the problem. What an obscure bug. This has been around since before LO 4. Under "Version," above, I selected 4.0.0.0 beta 2, but I'm actually using the stable release. Here's the problem: if you have a frame inside a frame, and anchored to the outer frame, the inner frame will cover (block out) an image that is in in the outer frame, even if the inner frame has no-fill specified as its background. For now, I'm using a workaround: set the inner frame's backdrop to white (any color would work) and a transparency of 100%. Have fun with this one! Thanks, y'all. Three cheers for LO 4 and many prosperous years ahead. Sincerely, Bram Operating System: Windows 7 Version: 4.0.0.0.beta2
Fixed bug to include 4.0.0.3 release. Somehow I wasn't able to find this version in the drop-down list on the LO bug report website.
Can you attach a writer file so we can open the file and see the same behavior? Also helps us analyze the xml data. Thanks! marking as NEEDINFO. Once you attach document reopen but as UNCONFIRMED and I'll take a look.
I think this is a duplicate of bug 34585, "frame with no-fill background has white background." Basically, frames with a background fill of "No Fill" aren't really transparent. They just inherit the background from wherever their anchor point is. If you want, I can create a document showing the behavior described in this bug, but I'll just list the steps below. Steps to reproduce 1. Insert a picture 2. Insert a frame 4. Move frame over picture Expected behavior Since frame has a background of "No Fill," it should still show the picture through the frame. Actual behavior Since the frame inherits the background fill of the page (white), it blocks anything arranged behind it. This still affects 4.1.1.2 but is really a 10 year old bug from OpenOffice. Here is the still open bug report from 2003. :) https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=20209
As I mentioned above, I'm pretty confident this is a duplicate of bug 34585, so I'll mark it as such. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 34585 ***