Description of problem: I'm using openoffice-2.3.0-6.11.fc8 and I've installed msttcorefonts package. When I set my font to Tahoma, the "ی" character does not transform to small type and always is shown as capital letter, when I type sime text in openoffice, and then paste it to some html file and show in in firefox, that is shown correctly. Best, adrin.
By the way, I'm using Iran/Pro keyboard layout.
Created attachment 298298 [details] picture Here's a picture without tamoha installed, so before I get tamoha, is the above picture correct ?
I have the same results after install mscorefonts, so can you attach a picture of what's the wrong result in OOo, and perhaps attach the output of fc-list and the output of rpm -qa | grep fonts. If there is a problem here I suspect it might not be with Tamaho at all but with some other font
Created attachment 298586 [details] the wrong form. this is the wrong form I see in openoffice. the right form is attached next.
Created attachment 298588 [details] right form of the character this is the right form of the character which is seen in firefox. (see the right character) someone says that this is because firefox and oowriter decide in different ways about using capital case or small case of characters.
Created attachment 298589 [details] fc-list output fc-list output is attached and more : $ rpm -qa | grep fonts baekmuk-ttf-fonts-common-2.2-6.fc8 lohit-fonts-hindi-2.1.9-1.fc8 bitmap-fonts-0.3-5.1.2.fc7 sazanami-fonts-gothic-0.20040629-4.20061016.fc8 lohit-fonts-oriya-2.1.9-1.fc8 xorg-x11-fonts-Type1-7.2-3.fc8 liberation-fonts-1.0-1.fc8 lohit-fonts-gujarati-2.1.9-1.fc8 xorg-x11-fonts-misc-7.2-3.fc8 lohit-fonts-tamil-2.1.9-1.fc8 lohit-fonts-kannada-2.1.9-1.fc8 kacst-fonts-1.6.2-2.fc8 ghostscript-fonts-5.50-18.fc8 lohit-fonts-punjabi-2.1.9-1.fc8 paktype-fonts-2.0-2.fc8 jomolhari-fonts-0.003-4.fc8 xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi-7.2-3.fc8 lohit-fonts-malayalam-2.1.9-1.fc8 lohit-fonts-bengali-2.1.9-1.fc8 baekmuk-ttf-fonts-gulim-2.2-6.fc8 lklug-fonts-0.2.2-5.fc8 xorg-x11-fonts-truetype-7.2-3.fc8 msttcorefonts-1.2-3 dejavu-lgc-fonts-2.19-1 xorg-x11-fonts-100dpi-7.2-3.fc8 urw-fonts-2.4-3.fc8 dejavu-fonts-2.20-1.fc8 tetex-fonts-3.0-44.8.fc8 lohit-fonts-telugu-2.1.9-1.fc8 cjkunifonts-uming-0.1.20060928-4.fc8 Best. Adrin.
Still not able to reproduce this, though I installed mscorefonts and then tried to get as many fonts as were not from a specific rpm but were listed in the output above. I sort of suspect that there's an alternative substitution being given to OOo which firefox doesn't get, e.g. because OOo only uses outline fonts, and that the font is simply busted, and the same thing would be seen in all apps if they also rejected non-outline fonts. But I can't get it to happen for me to identify what font is truly in use here.
Created attachment 299018 [details] sample document + used fonts here is a sample document in which I used the tahoma font and arial font, and I attached these two fonts too. Thanks for your attention. Best, adrin.
Created attachment 299109 [details] document
Created attachment 299110 [details] OOo screenshot
Created attachment 299111 [details] gedit screenshot
Created attachment 299112 [details] firefox screenshot
Your sample document contained the characters 06CC *followed by* 06A9, i.e. "ARABIC LETTER FARSI YEH" and then "ARABIC LETTER KEHEH", not just 06CC (ی) "ARABIC LETTER FARSI YEH" on its own. If I place each character separately, or place them side by side to combine then I get the same results in OOo, firefox and gedit with Arial. In comment #9 I attach a sample openoffice.org document that has the 06CC on its own, 06A9 on its own, and then both together to show the difference. It all looks ok to me, and all the apps here that I have appear to agree as to how to render it.
Yeah it's ok while I use arial font, the problem is with tahoma font. just change the font to tahoma, in your own document, the ARABIC LETTER FARSI YEH will be shown in a different manner when it's beside ARABIC LETTER KEHEH.
Created attachment 299121 [details] looks ok for me
Seeing as Tahoma does not have these glyphs, then there has to be a fallback in operation, and its hard to figure how what's being used for the glyph fallback. My own fallbacks appears to be working fine
I decided to change my tahoma font copied from another computer, it is fixed now. Maybe if you use my attached tahoma font in tar.gz archive, you will see what's wrong. But I think that's because my tahoma font was not standard. Who knows ;) I think I can change the status. Best, adrin.