Choice of default fonts in webrowsers

[Avi Alkalay]

This stuff is going to be published on TLDP soon as the new unified Font-HOWTO:

http://avi.alkalay.net/linux/docs/font-howto

I'm just waiting for some revisions.

Regards,
Avi


On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:13:54 +0100, Kyrre Ness Sjobak
<kyrre at solution-forge.net> wrote:
> 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
> 
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>