https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076506 T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tchollingsworth@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #14 from T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Pete MacKinnon from comment #12) > Fedora has one (1) of those fonts. I'll have to determine if leaving the > others out are impactful at runtime. You'll want to patch the references to the .woff and .eot versions out of the CSS @font-face definition. Without doing so, some browsers may attempt to use the nonexistent fonts. We currently don't have any provision for the use of .woff fonts, because no browser that supports them doesn't support .ttf fonts. We also don't have any provision for .eot fonts, which unfortunately precludes IE<9 support. (But really with Windows XP being EOL now that shouldn't be a problem...) There was strong opposition to supporting an unnecessary extra font format and/or a Microsoft-only standard from the Fedora font community when we first established guidelines for webfonts. (See https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-July/009322.html and downthread.) If any of this causes real headaches for you, feel free to revisit it on packaging@xxxxxxxx.o. Once you've fixed your CSS to only rely on the .ttf version, just Require web-assets-httpd (which has <Directory> entries making fonts available via httpd) and either add +FollowSymLinks and symlink to it or add an Alias to the fonts location. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review