Comment 83 for bug 827695

(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. ...
>
> What version(s) did it correctly? May the quoted statement have been an
> error?
>

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.

> Will the issue be addressed one day?

Possibly, and you get notice of it here.

>
> 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) ;-)