1425312 - The built in pdf viewer shows misaligned glyphs in Unicode code charts.

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Firefox :: PDF Viewer, defect, P3)

Description

[nobody_uses]

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/57.0
Build ID: 20171206182557

Steps to reproduce:

1. Go into unicode.org/charts
2. Click the Soyombo link in the built in pdf viewer.
(Note that this affects various Unicode proposals with custom fonts as well)


Actual results:

The majority of the glyphs are misaligned, even though they show fine in the external viewer.


Expected results:

The glyphs should have been shown centered

Comment 1

[Gingerbread Man]

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:59.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/59.0
20171214100315

Comment 2

[nobody_uses]

So why hasn't anybody discussed my bug. This is a very important issue to anybody who works with Unicode related documents.

Comment 3

[nobody_uses]

There is an even weirder manifestation of this bug:
1. Open this link: https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2017/17372r-n4923-dam1-chart.pdf
2. Go to page 81 and look at the highlighted cells (those are the proposed new additions to Unicode)
3. Compare with an external viewer (Noice that the glyphs Firefox is displaying are Hangul Jamo, which have nothing to do with Chackma)
If you look at the original proposal (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16330-chakma-add.pdf), the situation is even worse, showing unrelated Latin or Korean characters or failing to render at all.

Comment 4

[nobody_uses]

(In reply to nobody_uses from comment #3)
In the same link from number 1, go to page 92 and the glyphs for four of the letters of Dogra are simply not there.

Comment 5

[nobody_uses]

@:bdahl I really think the priority should be raisewd for this bug. People in the Unicode Consortium are always having to deal with supposed issues with their codecharts when it is only a problem with Firefox: https://www.unicode.org/review/pri372/ (the comment by Charlotte Buff is all to do with this bug). I mean if this isn't fixed soon we are talking of thousands of documents becoming unllegible, that really is a big deal.

Comment 6

[nobody_uses]

I just want to report that the bug has the exact same syntomps as of version 61.0.1

Comment 7

[nobody_uses]

Why was the severity reduced?

Comment 8

[Jonas Jenwald [:Snuffleupagus]]

(In reply to nobody_uses from comment #7)
> Why was the severity reduced?

Because "normal" is the correct level, according to the Severity section in https://wiki.mozilla.org/BMO/UserGuide/BugFields.

Comment 9

[nobody_uses]

(In reply to Jonas Jenwald [:Snuffleupagus] from comment #8)
> (In reply to nobody_uses from comment #7)
> > Why was the severity reduced?
> 
> Because "normal" is the correct level, according to the Severity section in
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/BMO/UserGuide/BugFields.

I would argue that it does qualify as Severe, because we are talking about the legibility of documents.

Comment 10

[nobody_uses]

:Snuffleupagus I want to request that the release notes of Firefox 64 take note of the fix for this bug and Bug 1196991. It is important that the Unicode consortium knows that they can know use Firefox without worrying.

Comment 11

[nobody_uses]

I need my inquiry actually answered please.

Comment 12

[Yury Delendik (:yury)]

(In reply to nobody_uses from comment #10)
> I want to request that the release notes of Firefox 64 take
> note of the fix for this bug and Bug 1196991. It is important that the
> Unicode consortium knows that they can know use Firefox without worrying.

(In reply to nobody_uses from comment #11)
> I need my inquiry actually answered please.

nobody_uses, the right process for release notes nomination described at https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/Release_Notes_Process

So, I'm setting "relnote-firefox: ?" to let release drivers to evaluate validity of this nomination.

Release Note Request (optional, but appreciated)
[Why is this notable]: see comment 0, comment 3 and comment 5.
[Affects Firefox for Android]: no
[Suggested wording]:
[Links (documentation, blog post, etc)]: n/a

Comment 13

[Julien Cristau [:jcristau]]

This seems to me like a corner case, not a major change or bug fix that we'd normally call out in the firefox release notes.