https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172713
V Stuart Foote <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugs.documentfounda | |tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15 | |9261 --- Comment #20 from V Stuart Foote <[email protected]> --- But the one line change to the .XCU to make LATIN_TEXT sequence "Noto Sans", or even "Liberation Sans" (the project already installs both) and the related locale specific font sequence tweaks to en, el, uk, bg, be, mk or ru locales is probably trivial. Last go round for UX-advise was see also bug 159261, and that was specifically a move over to Noto family for default fonts. Outcome was a => WF to maintain Libreation Fonts v2. But, that discussion did not address the move done wef. MS Word 2007, from template default of serif-Times New Roman to their sans-serif Calibri font. If interoperability was a concern we should have moved default to a Sans Serif then. And, we've done nothing to manage compatibility as MS moved Word 2023/Office 365 to the sans-serif Aptos flavor. So question for UX (with dev/ESC feed back on the OOXML and MS Binary filters) is if we really should be on a sans-serif default for Western text Writer documents? IMHO, moving LibreOffice onto Liberation Sans would probably be underwhelming, the Noto Sans we already distribute would be more appealing, with no substantive interoperability issues since the project already distributes the fonts. Noto otherwise is pretty ubiquitous. Comparing the Unicode coverage is telling Liberation Sans Noto Sans v. 2.15 v 2.015 Unicode points 2327 Unicode points 3094 Unique glyphs 2620 Unique glyphs 4515 And while we now can set a font other than OpenSymbol for sm/mathml formulas, as implemented for bug 101174, but module defaults for the nodes remain opensymbol--a serif font--so another pain point to adjust defaults. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
