On Thursday 16 March 2006 01:00, Davide Viti wrote: > This is (was) the idea (see [1]):
Looks good to me. Could you add the glyph ranges needed in the different fonts (except freefont)? Please also consider if some common codepoints, like for numbers, general punctuation and maybe accents should be included from the different fonts in addition to their base ranges. This could help to keep visual consistency within translations (only works if we implement changing the default font on selection of a different language of course). In some cases, like for CJK, we may want to keep latin characters too. For CJK this has been discussed before (and AFAIK is already implemented in the udeb). > I wonder if we should consider switching to freefont whenever possible. > This would bring alot of advantages (both in size and simplicity). That's basically what we've been doing so far, isn't it? Still, I think that if a different font really looks better to native speakers than freefont, we should in principle [1] use the other font [2]. [1] An exception could be if that font is much larger than alternative fonts. [2] Within reason of course. We can't let a translator for, say, Dutch decide he wants a different font. It's only acceptable for scripts that have separate ranges in the UTF table.
pgpfxrnnpKrui.pgp
Description: PGP signature