Comment 84 for bug 827695

(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #46)
> (In reply to Wolfgang Jäger from comment #44)
> > (In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #32 of 2016-01-13)
> > > It was correct in-between, so it is not the old bug. ...
> > ...

> See comment 30 and bug 97111, after that back to staus quo inherited from
> OOo-- with some intervening improvements to accuracy of fitting the
> stretched bracketing glyphs into their node bounds.
>
Seems you wouldn't call the status quo ante "good rendering" without a blink.
> > Will the issue be addressed one day?
>
> Possibly, and you get notice of it here.
Great.

SORRY. I had forgotten about a former visit to this thread, and had missed the mentioned comment by Regina.
Anyway I couldn't test with the two builds she mentioned, and my test with
V5.0.2.2.release (32 bit PortableApp on Win 10; version before the claimed change) showed the issue in exactly the same way as the "Bad rendering since 2015_08_12" in Regina's comparison did.

> > Despite the fact that there isn't much mention of the 'Math' component in
> > forums I would assume that afflicted users (teachers e.g.) might be relevant
> > "agents" concerning the standing of free and open software.
>
> And? Teachers also are welcome to contribute source (as Regina does
> regularly) ;-)

I appreciate Regina's contributions, of course. I'm also glad that contributions by the teacher I am would be welcome. Unfortunately I completely lack the needed knowledge about fonts and many related topics. Being 75 now I also cannot expect to find my way inside the labyrinth which C-code in general and the code base of a huge project like LibreOffice in specific is to me during the time left.