Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 180124
second glyph substitution passes corrupted
Last modified: 2014-03-25 20:53:03 EDT
Description of problem:
The env setting for this bug is on zh_CN.UTF-8 Desktop. oocalc was started from
gnome-terminal in en_US.UTF-8 locale.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1.in gdm log in with zh_CN locale (pre-req: scim and scim-pinyin installed)
2.start oocalc with sample opd file in en_US locale
3.ctrl-space to activate SCIM
4. enter in between charcacters of line 3 of text for example
5. enter hongmao1
6. enter qiye1
text got scambled together
should be the same as input with oocalc in zh_CN locale
to verify, copy and paste the line of text into gedit, it should reveal the
Created attachment 124243 [details]
sample file for illustrating this bug
Created attachment 124255 [details]
not sure I understand how to reproduce yet
I opened the attachment with en_US locale but pinyan scim enabled and typed the
suggested letters into the 3rd line of zh_CN text and then the third line of
the document and here's what it looked like, and it looked ok.
Am I misunderstanding, or not not reproducing ?
Created attachment 124301 [details]
exact location of error
You are definitely on the right track. Noticed in the new screenshot, the new
input characters is very close to the original text in the document. Each
characters should be equally width. If you continue to input, characters may
overlaps as well.
I've debugged enough of the problem now to see that it's a particularly nasty
one :-). It all depends on the order of the glyphs that are missing from the
font. Only the first pass of glyph substitution works correctly, follow up
passes don't get drawn in the right place or at all or some varient of that.
I'll knock up some demos that reproduce the problem in a pristine upstream
version and get some feedback on a solution.
Noticed that oowriter also has the problem as well and only with en_US.
*** Bug 171836 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Our OOo font developer tells me I've fixed this with my patch for bug 189761,
i.e. http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=64743. A good day.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 189761 ***