On 2016-05-08 11:23, Yuan Chao wrote:
> On 2016-05-04, Gunnar Hjalmarsson (gunnarhj) wrote:
>> Yeah, indeed. And it indicates that the bug resides in the "super"
>> OTC file.
>
> I thought the problem is on google-chrome as Firefox and other
> applications handles super OTC well?
What we found out is that Google's "super" OTC, unlike the other packaging formats which provide the very same Noto Sans CJK glyphs, doesn't work as expected with Google's web browser (or Chromium). So yeah, alternatively it may be Chrome/Chromium which are buggy.
On 2016-05-08 11:23, Yuan Chao wrote:
> On 2016-05-04, Gunnar Hjalmarsson (gunnarhj) wrote:
>> Yeah, indeed. And it indicates that the bug resides in the "super"
>> OTC file.
>
> I thought the problem is on google-chrome as Firefox and other
> applications handles super OTC well?
What we found out is that Google's "super" OTC, unlike the other packaging formats which provide the very same Noto Sans CJK glyphs, doesn't work as expected with Google's web browser (or Chromium). So yeah, alternatively it may be Chrome/Chromium which are buggy.