https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163329
--- Comment #8 from V Stuart Foote <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #7) > (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #6) > > Sorry for the noise otherwise, as Khaled is correct that with a supported > > font the radical reverses, eg. Noto Sans Math. > > Well, two points. > > First - I didn't set the font. And even if I don't use Khaled's document, > but rather just: > > 1. Create a new formula > 2. Set the direction to RTL > 3. Insert a square root construct (under "Functions") > > I get the flipped "radical". LibreOffice' default font can't produce > incorrectly-rendered radicals. And whatever one sets the font to - drawing a > flipped radical is a bug, plain and simple. Either we can draw the formula > right, or we refuse to use the typeface, or we refuse to render just the > radical. Based on what's been written so far - please confirm the bug. > But it is not a bug. If the font supports mirror (OTF "rtlm", or "rtla" feature) for U+221A the character is reversed as the node is composed. Listing of Unicode where font designer can specify rtlm mirror: https://www.charactercodes.net/mirrored/ https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/mirrored > Second: Do "supported fonts" have a different glyph for the RTL radical? I > can't seem to find one in Noto Sans Math. Or is it a "mirrored depending on > direction" feature of the glyph? > Nope, they're the same radicals (U+221A, U+221B, U+221C) that can be mirrored "rtlm", or an alternate glyph "rtla" is provided that is directional aware. And will display in an application that supports it (as LibreOffice now does). But the font designer has to add the "gsub" table entry. > > Enhancement might be to enable RTL mirror for the U+221A glyph in OpenSymbol > > font. > > s/enhancement/bug fixed or workaround/ ... Nope, up until Khaled implemented Arabic symbols and RTL math notation at 24.2 the sm formula & OLE would not reverse at all. Correcting OpenSymbol now to deliver "rtlm" mirror, or "rtla" alternate, tables would be reasonable implementation/enhancement. But it is not a bug. Nor is there a bug in the implementation as it does what it is supposed to--when the font supports the feature. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
