[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] sharing same family name (noto, fantasque)

Quoting Adam Borowski (2018-01-01 23:19:18)
> The second is Noto: currently, it takes about half the list in a font 
> picker on my desktop, as it's split into a separate family for every 
> single Unicode block (Noto Sans Ogham, Noto Sans Ol Chiki, Noto Sans 
> Runic, ...).
> Thus, I wonder: what would happen if all Noto pieces were changed to 
> share the family -- would fontconfig do the right thing?  I don't 
> think there is a reason for an user to pick one Noto piece over the 
> other -- being split into many files is an implementation detail.

Quoting /usr/share/doc/fonts-noto/FAQ.md.gz of fonts-noto:

> ### Could you provide a single font file that covers every language 
> (or at least as many scripts as possible)?
> A single file is not possible, because there are many more glyphs in 
> Noto than can fit into a single font. CJK alone is as large as it can 
> get. In addition, different scripts prefer different line metrics. 
> Noto tries to provide suitable line metrics for each script rather 
> than forcing all scripts to fit one. The UI fonts are an exception to 
> this, however, so using them we could g enerate a single font sharing 
> a single line height. However, we are working on a possible 
> repackaging of the fonts into a few files. We can probably get one for 
> CJK, one for common scripts in living languages, and one for obscure 
> scripts-- depends if Tangut pushes us over the limit of what non-CJK 
> we can fit into a single font. There are tools that can be used to 
> merge fonts but the devil is in the details-- some common characters 
> are in a few source fonts and if they behave differently we'd have to 
> work that out.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: