Choice of default fonts in webrowsers

[Kyrre Ness Sjobak]

tor, 16.12.2004 kl. 23.21 skrev Nicolas Mailhot:
> Le jeudi 16 décembre 2004 à 14:11 -0800, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
> > Hi
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Why is it so? Why is those fonts, which it seem like
> > > "everyone" thinks
> > > are really ugly are used, when better fonts are
> > > shipped?
> > 
> > 
> > I have heard before that this is because the default
> > fonts should be internationalised or something like
> > that which bitstream fonts arent
> 
> It might be worth taking a new look now that the deja variant of vera is
> announcing new glyphs every other months. Of course we're far from full
> unicode coverage, but fontconfig will fall back on Luxi if needed, so...

Would that mean that if we used the nice fonts as default, everyone
wanting to read a document with common glyphs would have no problem
reading it (both glyphwise and readabilitywise) - and those who has a
doc with less common glyphs, would get a mix? Or will the get only "old"
glyps in those docs? So for those who uses common glyphs, it will be a
good thing, and it won't hurt those who use less common glyps?

What are we waiting for?

Kyrre