On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:29:01 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-05-28 14:17:08 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>> I wonder why is that this is still needed because Firefox should
>> respect the system font settings.
>
> It seems that Firefox and fontconfig have different ways of dealing with
> missing fonts, and fontconfig works better. The bug I reported with some
> recent explanations:
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=761022
For the sample page you mention in the report, I get the proper results,
I mean, Firefox loads "Lucida Sans Unicode" which is the second
alternative font face specified by the CSS style and I have it installed
in my system.
sm01@stt008:~$ fc-match 'Lucida Sans Unicode'
l_10646.ttf: "Lucida Sans Unicode" "Normal"
It's a perfect match (1:1) so for me, Firefox does what fontconfig
commands.
Do you have any of the mentioned fonts ("Lucida Grande, Lucida Sans
Unicode, Lucida, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif") installed in your system?
On the other hand, the font rendered in the image you're attaching to the
bug report it looks like "Bitstream Vera Sans" instead "Lucida Sans" but
this is just personal feeling...
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jrfm6a$bf6$5...@dough.gmane.org
