Ah, go ahead and ask in #fedora. They know the exact package names; I had this problem for the first fifteen minutes. They're font packages. Try searching for tahoma. On 8/11/10, Jonathan Ryshpan <jonrysh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > -- 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
