Add SEC CJK font to font.name-list.sans-serif / font.name-list.monospace
Categories
(Core :: Graphics: Text, defect)
Tracking
()
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox84 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: m_kato, Assigned: m_kato)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/12045
The defualt fonts of CJK on Samsung's Galaxy device seems to be SEC CJK fonts. This seems to be modified version of Noto Sans CJK. Samsung has no.1 market share for Android, so we should add this fonts to default font list.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•4 years ago
|
||
The default fonts of CJK on Samsung's Galaxy device seems to be SEC CJK fonts.
This seems to be modified version of Noto Sans CJK. Samsung has No. 1 market
share for Android, so we should add this fonts to default font list.
Pushed by m_kato@ga2.so-net.ne.jp: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/420e6bcaf228 Add SEC CJK font to font.name-list.sans-serif / font.name-list.monospace. r=jfkthame
Comment 4•4 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
The commit #420e6bcaf228 did fix this bug for Japanese and Chinese but not for Korean Hangul.
It seems that the SEC CJK fontset does not have Hangul glyphs, and the "KR" variant is only for rendering Han characters' (漢字) regional difference, e.g. displaying 社 (U+793E) as ⿰示土, not ⿰礻土 in Korean locale.
The PostScript name for the default Hangul font on Samsung Android devices is "SamsungKorean_v2.0" (Android 10 / Samsung One UI 2.1). I'm not sure if there are any other naming or revision for the font.
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•4 years ago
|
||
(In reply to nano from comment #6)
The commit #420e6bcaf228 did fix this bug for Japanese and Chinese but not for Korean Hangul.
It seems that the SEC CJK fontset does not have Hangul glyphs, and the "KR" variant is only for rendering Han characters' (漢字) regional difference, e.g. displaying 社 (U+793E) as ⿰示土, not ⿰礻土 in Korean locale.The PostScript name for the default Hangul font on Samsung Android devices is "SamsungKorean_v2.0" (Android 10 / Samsung One UI 2.1). I'm not sure if there are any other naming or revision for the font.
Thank you. I file this as bug 1674683
Description
•