naming scheme for fonts packages?

[Jens Petersen]

I am currently reviewing a Tibetan font for inclusion in Fedora.
It is called Tibetan Machine Uni, and we have had a lengthy
polite discussion on the naming of the package both in and out
of bugzilla, also with the upstream maintainer.  (The project is hosted 
on SourceForge and GPL fwiw).  The package was submitted as 
tibetan-machine-uni-fonts, so I suggested fonts-tibetan.  However since 
the font is also good for Bhutanese, the submitter and the maintainer 
think fonts-tibetan-dzongkha (bhutanese) would be more appropriate.

It occurred to me that we really need some guideline about naming of 
fonts packages.  Most of our international fonts follow the naming 
scheme "fonts-*" where "*" is the generally the English name of the 
language, which makes  the package pretty easy to find.  And the 
remainder are mostly suffixed with "-fonts".  Currently in F7T2 there are:

fonts-ISO8859-2 fonts-KOI8-R fonts-arabic fonts-bengali fonts-chinese 
fonts-gujarati fonts-hebrew fonts-hindi fonts-japanese fonts-kannada 
fonts-korean fonts-malayalam fonts-oriya fonts-punjabi fonts-sinhala 
fonts-tamil fonts-telugu

and:

bitmap-fonts bitstream-vera-fonts dejavu-lgc-fonts ghostscript-fonts 
tetex-fonts urw-fonts xorg-x11-fonts

In Extras the fonts tend to be more alternative/miscellaneous I guess:

VLGothic-fonts artwiz-aleczapka-fonts charis-fonts dejavu-fonts 
doulos-fonts gentium-fonts hunky-fonts linux-libertine-fonts 
mathml-fonts mgopen-fonts terminus-font, and fonts-hebrew-fancy

So perhaps we need to set two naming conventions: using 
"fonts-<language>" for standard international fonts and "<name>-fonts" 
for alternative general fonts?

Of course "fonts-<language>" doesn't quite solve the problem for the 
Tibetan font... ;)  The name fonts-tibetan-script was also brought up, 
and even fonts-bodic.

It would probably be good to add some text about in on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines anyway.

Comments?  Opinions?

Jens