Issue 98139 - Interaction of font-fallback and font-replacement table
Summary: Interaction of font-fallback and font-replacement table
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: gsl
Classification: Code
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: DEV300m38
Hardware: All Unix, all
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: OOo 3.1
Assignee: philipp.lohmann
QA Contact: issues@gsl
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-01-16 12:35 UTC by caolanm
Modified: 2009-02-27 12:40 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

Attachments
example document (7.46 KB, application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text)
2009-01-16 12:35 UTC, caolanm 		no flags Details
a demo patch (1.02 KB, patch)
2009-01-16 12:36 UTC, caolanm 		no flags Details | Diff
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description caolanm 2009-01-16 12:35:32 UTC 
The font-replacement table isn't something I care particularly about, but as the
feature is there I guess we should determine how it interacts with the "system"
font-replacement.

i.e. see this attachment. Written in two fonts that don't exist, the second one
has an entry in the font-replacement table to "Liberation Serif" which is
assumed to be installed for this test. Currently both lines of text will be
shown in the fontconfig font fallback. I'd guess we should have the second line
in the font shown in the font-replacement table. 

The attached patch *might* be the right thing to do
Comment 1 caolanm 2009-01-16 12:35:54 UTC 
Created attachment 59429 [details]
example document
Comment 2 caolanm 2009-01-16 12:36:22 UTC 
Created attachment 59430 [details]
a demo patch
Comment 3 hdu@apache.org 2009-01-16 12:48:02 UTC 
> The font-replacement table isn't something I care particularly about

+1, I would have loved to get rid of this illogical POS in the last major version release

> The attached patch *might* be the right thing to do

Looks good. Please apply, or I can apply it in CWS vcl99.
Comment 4 caolanm 2009-01-16 12:52:56 UTC 
Oh you can take if off my hands :-) Its nothing we have actually applied
ourselves and so tested at all, just what I think needs to be done.
Comment 5 philipp.lohmann 2009-01-21 15:50:54 UTC 
target 3.1 then
Comment 6 hdu@apache.org 2009-01-23 07:43:40 UTC 
Got into CWS vcl99.
Comment 7 hdu@apache.org 2009-01-29 10:25:08 UTC 
@pl,@cmc: please verify in CWS vcl99.
Comment 8 philipp.lohmann 2009-01-29 11:05:33 UTC 
fine by me
Comment 9 kla 2009-02-23 08:42:06 UTC 
*** Issue 99349 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 10 kla 2009-02-23 08:49:08 UTC 
*** Issue 99482 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 11 philipp.lohmann 2009-02-27 12:40:45 UTC 
integrated in OOO310m1,DEV300m42, closing