Segoe UI Semibold font missing in Firefox
Genius
in system. I cannot use it in Firefox. I want to change default font
in options, but there is no Segoe UI Semibold font listed. For example
i want to change url-bar font with Segoe UI Semibold with tweaking
UserChrome.css but it does not work. I filed a bug days ago, but
nobody cares i think.
Genius
again. So what does it mean ?
James May
artifact of GDI's lack of support for most typographical features.
I think you have to set the font-family to "Segoe UI" and then the
font-weight to the apropriate value (google tells me it's 600).
HTH,
James
On 16 September 2010 22:50, Genius <vadi.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i disabled Direct2D and DirectWrite , and SegoeUI Semibold comes
> again. So what does it mean ?
> _______________________________________________
> dev-apps-firefox mailing list
> dev-apps...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox
>
Joe Drew
face; instead, it's just a different weight of the Arial face.
Joe
On 2010-09-16 8:16 AM, James May wrote:
> I'm not an expert, but I think that the "Semibold" variant is just an
> artifact of GDI's lack of support for most typographical features.
>
> I think you have to set the font-family to "Segoe UI" and then the
> font-weight to the apropriate value (google tells me it's 600).
>
> HTH,
> James
>
>
>
> On 16 September 2010 22:50, Genius<vadi.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> i disabled Direct2D and DirectWrite , and SegoeUI Semibold comes
>> again. So what does it mean ?
Jean-Marc Desperrier
>>> i disabled Direct2D and DirectWrite , and SegoeUI Semibold comes
>>> again. So what does it mean ?
>> font-weight to the apropriate value (google tells me it's 600).
> James is correct. For the same reason, Arial Black is no longer a font
> face; instead, it's just a different weight of the Arial face.
Would it make sense to simulate them in the list, for users who are used
to the old behavior ?
James May
platforms. ie. make more of the font-* properties work.
Rob Campbell
On 2010-09-23, at 06:58 , James May wrote:
> I think it would make more sense to simulate the new behavior on older
> platforms. ie. make more of the font-* properties work.
>
> On 23 September 2010 18:18, Jean-Marc Desperrier <jmd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
James May
in a final/stable/release build yet.
Unless I misunderstood?
-- James
On 23 September 2010 23:57, Rob Campbell <rcam...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> We don't typically add new features to old branches.
>
> On 2010-09-23, at 06:58 , James May wrote:
>
> > I think it would make more sense to simulate the new behavior on older
> > platforms. ie. make more of the font-* properties work.
> >
> > On 23 September 2010 18:18, Jean-Marc Desperrier <jmd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
Mike Shaver
> We don't typically add new features to old branches.
That's true as a historical observation, but not especially
informative! We have, and could again if it were a good trade-off.
We did, in fact, add features to maintenance releases specifically to
support Vista better shortly after FF3's release, as an example.
Regardless, though, James is talking about older platforms (XP), not
older branches.
> On 2010-09-23, at 06:58 , James May wrote:
>
>> I think it would make more sense to simulate the new behavior on older
>> platforms. ie. make more of the font-* properties work.
Mike
Robert Strong
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Rob Campbell<rcam...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> We don't typically add new features to old branches.
> That's true as a historical observation, but not especially
> informative! We have, and could again if it were a good trade-off.
> We did, in fact, add features to maintenance releases specifically to
> support Vista better shortly after FF3's release, as an example.
stopped having nightmares from it about a year later. ;)
Robert
> Regardless, though, James is talking about older platforms (XP), not
> older branches.
>
>> On 2010-09-23, at 06:58 , James May wrote:
>>
>>> I think it would make more sense to simulate the new behavior on older
>>> platforms. ie. make more of the font-* properties work.
> Mike
Mike Shaver
>> support Vista better shortly after FF3's release, as an example.
>
> Actually, it landed at 2007-02-05 23:13 for Firefox 2.0.0.2 and I stopped
> having nightmares from it about a year later. ;)
I feel really old now.
Mike