Re: Bad mozilla/Xprint interactions on Debian homepage: decisions needed
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 06:34:39PM +1000, Parsons, Drew wrote:
> Marc Wilson wrote:
> > Then Xprint is screwed. This is hardly news. Xprint was born
> > screwed. Those of us who use Mozilla just fought to get back the
> > ability to NOT use Xprint, you may recall.
> for what it's worth, mozilla has it's own degree of screwed-up-ness. On
> the same webpage, it fails to render the left hand links as "arial" or
> "helvetica", despite the clear instructions of the HTML code. Xprint, on
> the other hand, does render them correctly.
I don't know what YOU are looking at, but Mozilla is quite happy to render
the navigation links along the left edge as a san-serif font, as long as it
is configured to allow the document to choose the font.
Edit >> Preferences >> Appearance >> Fonts >> Allow documents to use...
Otherwise the "Typeface" setting above that is going to step on whatever
the page thinks it's going to try and force the browser to do. I generally
disable the ability of a page to choose the font in any case.
> If you believe Xprint is born screwed, can you suggest a better alternative
> for printing web pages in an alphabet other than latin? Are you aware there
> are languages which use alphabets (or not even that) other than latin?
Certainly I am. They are not *my* problem. People who need support for
such things should use a *fixed* Xprint, which is supposedly one of its
design goals, rather than compromising MY experience. After all, it is
Xprint that has the problem, not the browser.
> Thank you for the extra testing.
You're welcome. It's apparent that you didn't bother to do any yourself.
> I am happy to learn that mozilla 2:1.7.2-2 is not in fact affected by the
> problem. It therefore only appears to affect firefox.
No, it appears to only affect Xprint.
> This lessons the scope of the crisis considerably.
<snicker> Crisis? Please.
> I am, by the way, finding it increasingly difficult to hold on to the
> tenability of your assertion that Xprint is screwed. As you pointed out,
> it cooperates perfectly fine with mozilla proper.
Where do *I* point out that Xprint is anything other than crap? In case
you didn't notice, I'm agitating for it NOT to be used with Mozilla because
it does NOT cooperate with it well. I'd like to see Xprint shot,
You may search backwards-in-time in the d-u archives for why many people
think Xprint is crap, most recently in the several threads where users of
Mozilla had it temporarily shoved down their throats.
> > I can't say as I care what you do to Crapfox
> Just as well, because that seems to be the best place for the fix. Why do
> you hate Firefox so much? No one's forcing you to use it.
No, it's the cop-out place for the fix, rather than fixing the actual
problem, which is Xprint, for not producing the same thing the browser
rendered. Oh, and I don't hate Crapfox. I merely think it's, well, crap.
Marc Wilson | You prefer the company of the opposite sex, but are
email@example.com | well liked by your own.