Le jeudi 05 février 2009 à 14:24 -0300, Paul Lange a écrit : > Hey, > > I'm currently packaging Aurulent Sans: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hartke_Aurulent_fonts > > Everywhere is written, that it's a font who can be used as the primary > interface fonts. That's the author design aim, and that gives a good idea of the kind of design compromises he took, but that does not mean he succeeded :p > However at the moment (since 2007) there're only latin > glyphs with some more accents supported. Because of this I'm not sure > how to handle the fontconfig files. At the moment I'm really > conservative. Conservative is good. Whenever you feel a font is not good enough, or has too little coverage, or has not enough faces, you should put it at a high number in its priority range (for latin fonts typically 63-64) > You can view my fontconfig files here: > http://palango.fedorapeople.org/aurulent/ > > I currently only mark them only as sans-serif/monospace because I think > they are not yet ready for a primary interface font. I'm not sure that: "the width and style is reminiscent of Luxi Sans, Lucida Sans, Tahoma, and Andale Sans UI" is sufficient to mark the font as a valid substitute for those fonts. So far we've only marked this way fonts that were clearly derivatives of other fonts, or that claimed same (not reminiscent) metrics. Though at 64 it probably does not matter much, and it'll be interesting to see how users react. > I set the fontconfig-prefix of the sans-serif one to 61 (only latin) and > of the monospace to 64 (only latin, only regular). Any comments on this? You can probably be more conservative with sans-serif -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
_______________________________________________ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
