> On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 07:08:02AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > > Well, I have one very little argument against doing so: why do it > > for Dzongkha and why not do it for, say, French...:-) [Lionel Elie Mamane] > Because "French" is the adjective in English (the language the > package description is written in) for "from France". The same, I > would not expect it to be done if the language were called > "Bhutanese". OTOH, if you have no idea what language or what country the font pertains to, why would you want that font? I think a good default assumption when reading package descriptions is "If you don't have any idea what this is, you don't need it." Package descriptions should be written so that people who would want the package will understand them; for the rest of the world, it's nice to have some idea what the package is, but it's much less important. In the present case, communicating that this is a font for some specific language (which a person may never have heard of) seems sufficient.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature