On Thursday 16 March 2006 01:00, Davide Viti wrote:
> This is (was) the idea (see [1]):
Looks good to me. Could you add the glyph ranges needed in the different
fonts (except freefont)?
Please also consider if some common codepoints, like for numbers, general
punctuation and maybe accents should be included from the different fonts
in addition to their base ranges. This could help to keep visual
consistency within translations (only works if we implement changing the
default font on selection of a different language of course).
In some cases, like for CJK, we may want to keep latin characters too. For
CJK this has been discussed before (and AFAIK is already implemented in
the udeb).
> I wonder if we should consider switching to freefont whenever possible.
> This would bring alot of advantages (both in size and simplicity).
That's basically what we've been doing so far, isn't it? Still, I think
that if a different font really looks better to native speakers than
freefont, we should in principle [1] use the other font [2].
[1] An exception could be if that font is much larger than alternative
fonts.
[2] Within reason of course. We can't let a translator for, say, Dutch
decide he wants a different font. It's only acceptable for scripts
that have separate ranges in the UTF table.
Attachment:
pgpbgYqTAw3Dt.pgp
Description: PGP signature