Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511298 Nicolas Mailhot <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot <[email protected]> 2009-07-14 15:44:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > I notice that the conf file (stix-fonts-fontconfig.conf) doesn't mention > STIXGeneral-Bold, only STIXGeneral. This name is not exported by Stix files on *nix fontconfig systems. You could argue fontconfig should recognize it as it's one of the legacy names in the font metadata, but at the same time if fontconfig exported all the layers of font legacy metadata junk instead of just the most modern metadata apps would have a difficult time coping. The CSS is wrong if it references a legacy name, I don't think any modern OS will display STIXGeneral-Bold for the Bold version of STIXGeneral > I suspect that omission is causing the problem. > > Who created the conf files that are part stix-fonts srpm? You suspect wrong, our fontconfig files can help fontconfig find a font it wouldn't have otherwise but never to remove access to a font which is referenced directly Anyway, not a bug in the font package. All the data is there. Feel free to bug the fontconfig or firefox maintainers if you want legacy naming access enabled -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
