Created attachment 8509658 [details] testcase.png User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/33.0 Build ID: 20141016231145 Steps to reproduce: Wrote a html file with style of different font family Actual results: Firefox never handled cursive and fantasy, and some font family string which works with fc-match was not matched in Firefox Expected results: Firefox should pick fonts exactly as the result of fc-match
Could you attach the testcase, please.
You mean the html file in my attached screenshot or? Some more perhaps useful info: I'm with Arch Linux. My fontconfig version is 2.11.1. The "URW Chancery L" font is from here: http://svn.ghostscript.com/ghostscript/tags/urw-fonts-1.0.7pre44/ I also got ttf-dejavu 2.34 installed.
(In reply to Tom Yan from comment #2) > You mean the html file in my attached screenshot or? Yes.
Created attachment 8720916 [details] screen-copy.PNG User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:47.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/47.0 Version 47.0a1 Build ID 20160217062621 Update Channel nightly OS Linux 3.19.0-49-generic x86-64 Test case was given by the reporter but it was in PNG format. Rewritten html file is attached now. In addition, Screenshot of my fc-match and browser outputs is also attached. It is not reproducible in my machine. Fantasy and cursive fonts seem to match with the fc-match fonts.
@Abe - QA You were not even doing a fair test. You should at least make sure that cursive and fantasy is not matched to the universal default ("Dejavu Sans" "Book"). Otherwise the test is simply pointless. For example: [tom@localhost ~]$ git diff /etc/fonts/conf.avail/45-latin.conf /etc/fonts/conf.d/45-latin.conf diff --git a/etc/fonts/conf.avail/45-latin.conf b/etc/fonts/conf.d/45-latin.conf index 47a1837..ade6386 100644 --- a/etc/fonts/conf.avail/45-latin.conf +++ b/etc/fonts/conf.d/45-latin.conf @@ -167,6 +167,10 @@ Fantasy faces --> <alias> + <family>URW Gothic</family> + <default><family>fantasy</family></default> + </alias> + <alias> <family>Impact</family> <default><family>fantasy</family></default> </alias> @@ -186,6 +190,10 @@ Cursive faces --> <alias> + <family>Chancery URW</family> + <default><family>cursive</family></default> + </alias> + <alias> <family>ITC Zapf Chancery Std</family> <default><family>cursive</family></default> </alias> [tom@localhost ~]$ git diff /etc/fonts/conf.avail/60-latin.conf /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-latin.conf diff --git a/etc/fonts/conf.avail/60-latin.conf b/etc/fonts/conf.d/60-latin.conf index 35600ea..e531aa9 100644 --- a/etc/fonts/conf.avail/60-latin.conf +++ b/etc/fonts/conf.d/60-latin.conf @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ <alias> <family>fantasy</family> <prefer> + <family>URW Gothic</family> <family>Impact</family> <family>Copperplate Gothic Std</family> <family>Cooper Std</family> @@ -64,6 +65,7 @@ <alias> <family>cursive</family> <prefer> + <family>Chancery URW</family> <family>ITC Zapf Chancery Std</family> <family>Zapfino</family> <family>Comic Sans MS</family> Anyway, I confirmed that at least as of 44.0.2, firefox matches the same font as fc-match when dealing with "cursive" and "fantasy". Although it still doesn't match the "indirect" alias "Zapf Chancery" to "Chancery URW" like fc-match does, but at least it does match the "direct" alias "ITC Zapf Chancery", which Chromium doesn't match: (/etc/fonts/conf.d/30-metric-aliases.conf) ... <alias binding="same"> <family>Zapf Chancery</family> <default> <family>ITC Zapf Chancery</family> </default> </alias> ... <alias binding="same"> <family>Chancery URW</family> <default> <family>ITC Zapf Chancery</family> </default> </alias> ... <alias binding="same"> <family>ITC Zapf Chancery</family> <accept> <family>TeX Gyre Chorus</family> <family>Chancery URW</family> <family>URW Chancery L</family> </accept> </alias> ...
Created attachment 8720970 [details] testcase_44_0_2.png Again I won't provide the html file. It's clearly shown on the screenshots I uploaded. Not to mention that it is just a super simple html file anyone can make in a minute, and whoever want to reproduce this issue should write the test file according to their available fonts and fontconfig conf files being used. The request was so silly/absurb that I didn't even want to bother caring about this report anymore. Seriously, I doubt anyone would bother to fix it if he don't even want to write a proper test file himself, not to mention that it is such a simple one.
Tom, thanks for taking on this issue. I was verifying if the two fonts (cursive and fantasy)match with my fc-match. I also noticed that other fonts do not match with fc-match. I will re-review it further using your inputs.
Hi, Tom - thank you for filing the bug, but this tone is unwarranted. If you would like to provide the file, or a reduced testcase, that reproduces the issue, that would help us prioritize and resolve this bug. Otherwise, we'll have to do the best we can with the resources available.