Around 2 o'clock on Feb 12, Anthony Fok wrote: > Would it be a good idea, if a font already contains a valid > Unicode CMap (e.g. Format 4 and/or 12), that CMap 0 be ignored > altogether? There appears to be more buggy fonts out there on the > market than we would like. Anyhow, I have no preference either > way, so, you make the call. :-) Fonts are also broken in the other direction -- they contain both Unicode and Apple Roman mappings, but the Unicode mapping doesn't map Latin glyphs while the Apple Roman mapping cannot cover the glyphs available in the font. Suggestions for how to figure out the right mapping are welcome... > A visual check with ftview showed that the glyph indices are off by 26 I have a vague recollection of having fixed a bug like this. Can you report which versions of the X server, Xrender, Xft and fontconfig you are using? > There are a few other Mozilla Xft issues as seen on Bugzilla. The > "disappearing text when with switching fonts" happens on my Debian > sid/unstable system (XFree86 4.2.1, with XRender). > ... > However, everything looks and works okay on Red Hat 8.0 and Phoebe. I suspect RH has incorporated various fixes from current XFree86 CVS which haven't made it into Debian unstable yet. Please give current CVS a try and see what happens there. Keith Packard Cambridge Research Lab Hewlett Packard
