New forum typeface

2»

Comments

  • I think the lack of broader Unicode support is a Chrome issue. Works fine in Firefox and Safari. I don't know if there's a way around that, but if anyone has any ideas, I'm all ears. 
  • You’re right, Dyana. It works fine for me in Firefox and Safari as well.

    Maybe it’s just time to change browsers. sigh.
  • Adam JagoszAdam Jagosz Posts: 606
    edited February 13
    I see the Phoenician in Segoe UI Historic (Firefox, Windows). Which still is fine, doesn't bother me, since I'm not much of a Phoenician person.
    Not fine: do you see these combining marks positioned properly?
    _______________________________
    Ìwò̩fà ń yò̩ séji tó gbojúmó̩, ó hàn pákànpò̩ gan-an nis̩é̩ rè̩ bó dò̩la. (vertical line below accented vowels, Yoruba)
    Ąąʼ háádę́ę́ʼ? (acute above eogonek, Navajo)
    Ġ (G with dot above, mentioned in another thread for no apparent reason).
    _______________________________
    I see it correctly in Chrome: In chrome, these sequences are displayed with fallback font:
    In Firefox, only the missing combining marks are in fallback font.

    This makes it tricky to even notice for the majority (Chrome users) but irritating to us Firefox people.
  • Kent Lew said:
    I’m seeing the Phoenician just fine.

  • John HudsonJohn Hudson Posts: 1,871
    Noto uses separate fonts for different scripts, so in order to get consistent Noto display I think you need to set up your CSS to specify Unicode ranges to use specific Noto webfonts.
  • Any hints how we might do that? I'm afraid for forté is drawing fonts, not so much CSS. ;) 
  • Displays for me in all browsers, because I have Noto Sans installed.


  • My first assumption was that was the problem. But currently, the Phoenician works in Firefox and Safari, but not in Chrome, on the same Mac computer.

    I am trying to think of what might cause that:
    • Chrome differs in its handling of fallback syntax in the CSS?
    • Firefox and Safari access their own additional fallback fonts?
    • ...?
  • I installed Noto Sans in Windows and I still see the fallback font in Edge Chromium and Chrome.
  • Thomas Phinney  Usually Safari and Chrome behave exactly similar in handling CSS and DOM. They even share the same bugs. The difference is, that Chrome caches very aggressively (DNS, redirections, CSS, JS). But this can't be the reason, because my Chrome is open since months with ~200 tabs.

    I have MacOS Mojave 10.14.6. On my MacAir High Sierra it's the same.

    On my remote iMac with Mojave the Phoenician doesn't display in Chrome, but works in FireFox and Safari. No extra fonts installed. There must be a difference in the handling of webfonts.




  • The difference between Chrome and FireFox is, that Chrome still has the CSS for Source Code Pro.

    Chrome:
    
    https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Source+Code+Pro:500,500i&display=swap
    https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Noto+Sans:400,400i,700,700i&display=swap
    FireFox:
    https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Noto+Sans:400,400i,700,700i&display=swap
    https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Noto+Sans:400,400i,700,700i&display=swap
    

    I can't even find the file location from where TextEdit, TextWrangler and the command line take Noto Sans Phoenician als fallback.
  • I can see the Phoenician (Chrome, PC). BTW Noto reads much better than Source Sans!
  • Adam LaddAdam Ladd Posts: 176
    Strange, this morning I checked a post and the original posted text looked like a different font than Noto—just the regular body text, but not the title or even the bold in the body.

    When I activated the FontFace Ninja extension to check, it then switches to Noto. It only happened to one post, I looked at a few others and they seemed to display the font fine. So, maybe not a big deal. (MacOS 10.14.5 - Safari 12.1.1)

    Screenshots below (ignore the different sizes because the image are different dimensions).

    BEFORE:



    AFTER:


Sign In or Register to comment.