On Sunday 06 January 2008, Davide Viti wrote: > > The font overlaps in the Latin base range: U+0020-U+00FF (actually, > > the font also covers ISO-8859-1), that's all. > > according to some tests done a while ago with CJK fonts, better > results are achieved if each separate font provides its own latin > letters (different fonts use different metrics for their glyphs), so > the fonts should be fine like this. I'm still not sure that that is a valid general policy. For CJK it _is_ valid as that font is basically a monospaced font while freefont is proportional. So, given that fundamental difference, it is not surprising that having its own Latin range produces much better results. However, I would expect that for other fonts just using the freefont Latin range would produce perfectly good results (provided the sizing is comparable) and especially if their Latin font is basically from the same font family as freefont. So IMO this should be checked for each font separately instead of using it as a general rule. I feel that the space taken by the duplicated Latin ranges is worth saving, and that goes double with every extra font that we add that has a duplicated Latin range.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.