Am Freitag, den 06.02.2009, 12:03 -0300 schrieb Paul Lange: > > 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. > > OK, I removed the substitution rules. > > > > 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 > > Done this to and submitted a review request: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527 Sorry, wrong link. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484379
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
_______________________________________________ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
