OOo documents look different

[John Thacker]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 10:53:52PM +0200, Erwin Rol wrote:
> Well it ended here because it did happen on FC5 and rawhide but not on
> Windows. So it seemed that OOo worked correctly and FC changed something
> that made it not work correctly on FC. 

Can you please describe what "it" is?  Does the file:

1) Take up the same number of pages in both Windows and FC5, but is 
different in Rawhide?
2) Take up the same number of pages in Windows and Rawhide, but change
between FC5 and Rawhide?
3) Or something else?

Do you have examples of files which render differently in FC5 and Rawhide
and Windows?  There were changes done to rendering between FC5 and Rawhide
to use font information that Windows has always (supposedly) used that
FC5 and earlier don't use.  Hypothetically this should actually make the
rendering in Rawhide closer to that of Windows, though there are a host
of other possibilities that would cause rendering differences because OOo, 
just like Word which it is based on, is inherently suspectible to this sort 
of thing.  I've certainly seen pagination differences when upgrading between 
versions of Word, or between releases of Windows.

Hypothetically, if OOo in FC5 rendered differently than on Windows, would
you consider it a bug or a problem if it were changed for FC6 to render
closer (even identical) to Windows but this made it different from FC5
and earlier?

John Thacker
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20060710/86c51e7a/attachment.sig>