On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 18:21 +0100, Michael Stahl wrote: > On 26/01/12 14:20, Eike Rathke wrote: > > Hi, > > > > please review and cherry-pick to 3-5, 3.5.0 and 3-4 > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=34315e7ec4062f9521cd19951b5f7f6ad9ce0d2e > > > > Resolves https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38595
That fix can only improve the whole story. > ooh, Calc also has this kind of problem :) > > your fix is an improvement, but i have doubts about taking the width > from the fo:border at all if there is a style:border-line-width: That thing is pretty far away for me now... but the width from fo:border shouldn't be completely ignored. > the idea is that for double borders, the 3 parts of > style:border-line-width should add up to the total width of the border; > so if the fo:border contains a value different from the sum of the 3 > parts then there is probably a problem.. i'd call such a document invalid. Sounds a good idea to me. IIRC the width was computed in a weird way from what I could get from that other office suite, but I wanted to change it as I'm not sure their width is the actually displayed one. After such a cleanup, then yes, the sum of the 3 lines should be equal to the fo:border width easily. > but i suppose it would be legal to omit the width from fo:border for > double borders? what does this fix do then? initialize the width to zero? > > i've fixed this differently in my patch for writer, which Cedric has > promised to review any minute now: > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=56151 The minutes were transformed into a night... but I'm ok with your patches and pushed them to 3.5 and master. 2 more reviews to have them into 3.5.0. -- Cedric _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice