On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 03:38:47 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2012-06-15 16:00:10 +0000, Camaleón wrote: >> For the sample page you mention in the report, I get the proper >> results, I mean, Firefox loads "Lucida Sans Unicode" which is the >> second alternative font face specified by the CSS style and I have it >> installed in my system. >> >> sm01@stt008:~$ fc-match 'Lucida Sans Unicode' >> l_10646.ttf: "Lucida Sans Unicode" "Normal" > > It doesn't seem to be in Debian.
It's a Windows font but what I wanted to say is that Firefox does what fontconfig says, no disagreements here. >> Do you have any of the mentioned fonts ("Lucida Grande, Lucida Sans >> Unicode, Lucida, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif") installed in your >> system? > > "Lucida" is the first one, and it is a bitmap font: But the first one is "Lucida Grande" and your fontconfig points to "Bitstream Vera Sans" as a replacement and that's the font Firefox renders. > luRS12-ISO8859-1.pcf.gz: "Lucida" "Sans" > > Hence the problem. Why do you think Lucida is the rendered font? The image you're attaching does not resemble Lucida :-? Anyway, my point is that Firefox tries to render the first of the fonts defined in the CSS styles (in order) and when it finds a 1:1 replacement it loads that font. If there's no such coincidence, it uses the system settings for the font substitution, in your case "Bitstream Vera Sans". Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jrndie$kvm$8...@dough.gmane.org