On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 22:04 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 11/08/10 21:46, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > Text to be printed by Firefox has disastrously bad text layout, and has
> > had bad layout for years. An example is attached. The only way to get
> > text well laid out is to copy it into a word processor (I use Open
> > Office) and to print it out from there.
> >
> > Who else has noticed this? Is there a known cure, say by downloading
> > fonts, or font layout tables?
> You have not provided a link?
Quite right. Sorry. The link is:
http://www.tnr.com/print/article/politics/76822/the-look-time
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 16:54 -0400, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> just curious, why would you want to print a web page?
> I usually copy & paste any web page info to a word processor, and save it as a
> text file, or just print then delete.. That saves printing all the stupid
> ads, etc, on the web page. Or am I missing something?
Often the page doesn't have any such garbage on it, like the one linked
to above.
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 14:01 -0700, JD wrote:
> Perhaps (I conjecture here) that the web page being
> viewed was created using Microsoft web tools
> which use features or attributes in the resulting web
> content, that FF simply does not know what to do with
> or implements them incorrectly.
>
> Perhaps MS is highjacking the web page standards in
> the same way they had tried to highjack java.
Probably not. The page linked to is from The New Republic. I have
similar problems printing from the NY Times.
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 17:33 -0400, Kwan Lowe wrote:
> You've hit it.. It's often missing fonts that cause bad rendering.
> There are some web core font packages you can install that will
> improve it. You can also override the web page settings.
Are these the ttf.. packages mentioned below by JB?
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 17:06 -0500, Jonathan Beatty wrote:
> There are some font packages that start with ttf (if I remember
> correctly) that fix this problem cleanly.
No useful looking packages starting ttf. Here's a list of all packages
with ttf in their names:
SDL_ttf.i686
SDL_ttf.x86_64
SDL_ttf-debuginfo.x86_64
SDL_ttf-devel.i686
SDL_ttf-devel.x86_64
baekmuk-ttf-dotum-fonts.noarch
baekmuk-ttf-fonts-common.noarch
baekmuk-ttf-fonts-ghostscript.noarch
baekmuk-ttf-gulim-fonts.noarch
baekmuk-ttf-hline-fonts.noarch
batik-ttf2svg.noarch
brettfont-fonts.noarch
perl-Font-TTF.noarch
scottfree.x86_64
ttf2pt1.x86_64
ttf2pt1-debuginfo.x86_64
Which do you think are the ones wanted?
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 20:14 -0400, fred smith wrote:
> Having not yet viewed your attached images, I need to ask: is it ugly
> characters/symbols, or is it the horrid layout?
It's horrid layout.
Thanks to all - jon
--
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
