On Sat, 2019-06-15 at 04:49 +0700, anon notmyfault64 wrote:Why did you seem to resist using modern web technologiesModern web development practices have some downsides: They are wasteful of resources; including energy and bandwidth, both on the server side and on the client side. They are disrespectful of visitors; including their available technology, preferences, background, privacy, security, time and bandwidth/energy usage. I'm happy to use features of the modern web that don't have downsides, such as the newer HTML tags.(webfont in this case)Webfonts have some downsides: Wasteful of bandwidth since everyone has local fonts installed that support the languages they can read. Disrespectful of people who have a specific preference for a certain kind of font since the web pages will look different to their choices. Disrespectful of people who prefer or only read languages that don't use the Latin script, since many webfonts don't support many languages and so pages containing non-Latin languages don't look the same and may look jarring with two different fonts on the same page. Are yet another vector for performing security attacks against website visitors via bugs in those visitor's font parsing/rendering software. Are yet another vector for performing privacy attacks against website visitors by fingerprinting visitor's font parsing/rendering software or having them report their visit to third-parties distributing the font.Regarding font packaging, I agree that I should contribute to Debian Fonts Team by packaging Rubik font, in order to be used by debian.org website. Since I haven't ever done packaging fonts, can you give me documentations about how to package fonts?Generally it is the same as normal packages: * Find the upstream source code repository * Take a tarball of the latest tagged release * Drop in the default Debian packaging * Add build dependency information * Add Debian specific metadata * Add an upstream metadata file * Build and test the package * Request a sponsor for the package Unfortunately with fonts there are several possible complications: * may not release their source code * may use proprietary licenses * may use proprietary formats for their source * may use proprietary tools to build or modify * with the SIL OFL some fonts use reserved font names, which means that no-one is allowed to build the font from source. * may not use a version control system (VCS) * may not create properly versioned releases * may put prebuilt font files in their VCS * may not have an automated build system * may not publish their build system The Rubik font seems to be free of several of these issues, but some of them unfortunately are definitely present. https://hubertfischer.com/work/type-rubik https://github.com/googlefonts/rubik I'd advise you to peruse the intro for new package maintainers, the Fonts wiki page and if you have specific questions about packaging Rubik, ask the upstream maintainers and or the debian-fonts list. https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts https://lists.debian.org/debian-fonts/Regardless, if we implemented Rubik to debian.org website, the CSS stylesheet would be like this below (observed from fandom.com wikis): ... body { font-family: Rubik, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; }This doesn't appear to use webfonts.
Paul, the code snippet above is under assumption that Rubik font is installed on debian.org server (via yet to be created package).
If webfonts version is used instead, the HTML code is like below (assume that only regular variation is used):
<head>
...
<link href=""moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=">https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Rubik&display=swap" rel="stylesheet">
...
</head>
And for CSS is the same as above CSS snippet I have sent earlier:
body {
font-family: Rubik, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
}