<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - A new default set of bundled fonts" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103080#c29">Comment # 29</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - A new default set of bundled fonts" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103080">bug 103080</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:philipz85@hotmail.com" title="Yousuf Philips (jay) <philipz85@hotmail.com>"> Yousuf Philips (jay)</a> <pre>(In reply to Yannick.D from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=103080#c21">comment #21</a>) > I‘m not against removing fonts in general. But why is Source Sans/Code now > being removed? We didn't add the entire font family in LO 4.0 and its unlikely that we will add the serif variant any time soon, as it doesnt come in italics (<a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED WONTFIX - Please bundle Source Serif Pro" href="show_bug.cgi?id=79022">bug 79022</a>). > They have only been mentioned in the context of Ubuntu > packaging. How is that an argument? So debian also doesnt package the Source font family. It is available in fedora and opensuse repos though. The argument is about how wide spread the open source font is in the linux/foss world. > Its one of the most sophisticated open > source fonts projects. Why remove it without discussion? For a gain of 2MB?! Discussions were had about its removal in the design and ESC meetings last week. The removal isnt about the size, its about its completeness as a font family, its limited unicode coverage, how popular the font is and its future potential. > - Why keep Gentium Book? (Or even Gentium if others are removed?) > - Why don't replace Libertine/Biolinum Graphite versions with OTF? What > about its display cut? > - Why keep all those DejaVu fonts? (Which are also rather similar to Noto…) During the ESC meeting on October 26th, the decision was made not to remove Libertine/Biolinum and DejaVu fonts as it would effect alot of documents that were created with these fonts, which have been shipping with LO since 3.3, as well as OOo. (In reply to sommerluk from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=103080#c22">comment #22</a>) > I would rather think about Noto Sans Arabic instead of Noto Kufi… We also plan to include Noto Sans Arabic. See <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Bundle and use open source Arabic fonts by default" href="show_bug.cgi?id=113532">bug 113532</a> for more details. (In reply to Francisco from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=103080#c24">comment #24</a>) > just remember to remove/update all the templates based on the specific font > you are deleting. Specially the ones based on Source Sans. Yes those are being updated (<a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_ASSIGNED " title="ASSIGNED - Replace Open Sans with Noto Sans in bundled templates" href="show_bug.cgi?id=113795">bug 113795</a>).</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>