To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=71804
User hdu changed the following:
What |Old value |New value
================================================================================
CC|'hennerdrewes' |'hennerdrewes,pl'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 26 15:42:41 +0000
2008 -------
The output between the two PDFs is matching indeed except there is this offset
since the problematic
glyph (initial form of U+0644). Since the width of the isolated U+0644 is quite
different, the offset is in
the same range as their width-difference...
@pl: since CWS glyphadv there is an optimization in the PDF export which might
be related: The
registerGlyphs() method checks the glyph width for the corresponding isolated
codepoint instead of the
actual glyph?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
