181669 - Arabic diacritics not rendered correctly with Arabic fonts like Times New Roman

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 180112

(Core :: Layout: Text and Fonts, defect)

Description

[Connie]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0

In Arabic, use of diacritics causes letters which should normally join to not
join. (i.e. there is a small space between them although the correct shaping is
maintained.) This has resulted in websites avoiding use of all diactics in Arabic.
By diacritics, I mean the short vowels and other marks of orthography which are
usually not written and are optional but are nevertheless desirable in some
situations.
This is true for all languages using Arabic-derived scripts. The URL I gave
earlier (http://depts.washington.edu/yekruz/y1.htm) is
actually Persian and here is a collection of screenshots of that same page 
viewed on many different browsers:
http://depts.washington.edu/yekruz/bprobs.htm

This problem does not exist with Win/IE 5+, no matter which Arabic font one uses.

The only way currently to solve this problem with Gecko browsers is to use
special fonts which compensate for the Gecko bug.  They are available here:
http://www.bornaray.com/en_fonts.asp?fn=per_fonts&rfn=en_fonts&parent=fontslist&Grand=Main

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Comment 1

[Simon Montagu :smontagu]

What exactly do you mean by "special fonts which compensate for the Gecko bug?"
Do these fonts only display correctly in Gecko, and incorrectly in other software?

Comment 2

[Christopher Hoess (gone)]

The things circled in green are underlined link texts, because there's
whitespace between your <img> and </a> tags. A comparison of the parts circled
in red with the correct rendering in another browser would be helpful; none of
the other screenshots seem to show that part of the page.

Comment 3

[Jean-Marc Desperrier]

This strongly looks like a duplicate of bug 180112.

If someone can confirm it is, please mark as such, and close, or let me do it if
you don't have the rights.

If there's a difference, maybe it's still adequate to mark as a dependance, and
retest if 180112 gets corrected.

Comment 4

[Asa Dotzler [:asa]]

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 180112 ***