> Up till now, seems people have generally used the font name instead of > the language to name the package. However, the decision you maade with > ttf-lao, and the situation with Dzongkha is similar to ttf-lao (there > will be more fonts you inted to put in the same package) suggests that > ttf-dzongkha is most appropriate. Yes, this is actually what gets my preference, given that I may later package more fonts in ttf-dzongkha. The recommendation could actually be using ttf-<language name as of ISO 639> for packages intended to include several fonts aimed to display a given language. When a given language has more than one package covering it, then we could propose ttf-<language>-font(s)name To answer Arne's question, I think that changing the name of the existing package wuld be pretty much a big pain, though probably worth it in the long term. So, for the Chinese fonts, that would give ttf-chinese-arphic-foo... For Arabeyes fonts, something like ttf-arabic-arabeyes, and the like.... And, yes, meta-packages such as ttf-chinese would be a good idea. This doesn't cover everything. For instance the Indic script languages currently have packages named after the script more than the language, which makes sense for them. So, the proposal of a font naming system should also include that possibility. Well, for Dzongkha, I think I'll get stuck with ttf-dzongkha....
Description: Digital signature