On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 12:00 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le vendredi 16 mars 2018 à 10:43 +0000, Nikolaus Waxweiler a écrit : > > > > > > > Fine with me actually. DejaVu only having two weights (the thin looks > > more experimental to me) is going to clash with Gnome's design > > intentions though from what I hear. Noto would still be preferable > > because it's the 800 pound gorilla in Unicode coverage, _consistent_ > > design quality and available weights and widths. And it's under active > > professional development, while DejaVu seems to be in stasis. > > It's kind of sad that despite being is stasis for years DejaVu is still > leagues away from prototypes dumped on our users just for the coolness > factor > > And, I wouldn't put to much weight on “professional” development. The > last years have pretty much proven that “professionnal” development is a > synonym for “cutting corners on i18n where we think users won't notice > it, because our customers only check ASCII”. Are you conflating Cantarell and Noto there? I am not especially qualified to judge the quality of any of these fonts, but the Noto family's script coverage seems pretty solid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noto_fonts#List_of_Noto_fonts at least some of those seem to be essentially other fonts that have been 'rebranded' as Noto, so I've no idea how consistent their appearance is, of course. DejaVu seems to have less coverage, and indeed IIRC we currently use other fonts by default for scripts other than Latin, Greek and Cyrillic. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
