On 03/08/2014 05:02 PM, Steven Walling wrote: > ignoring all of the other changes in the typography update.
Steven, I have nothing remarkable to say about the typography update as a whole. I will not pretend knowing better than anybody involved in that project. I have been consistently opposed to the specification of any proprietary fonts in anything related with Wikimedia and MediaWiki, and I was replying to a message in a thread about "Font stack", started by Isarra asking why we need to define anything else than "sans-serif". > the entirely irrational dislike of referring to a font that is not FOSS. > This is superficial I have done my best trying to explain why this opposition is not bikeshedding, is not irrational, and is not superficial. See my points at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/design/2013-December/001285.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2014-February/074633.html Since I didn't succeed getting any reply on the matter of principles, I decided to move to the practical test I referred to in my previous email. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh/Font_choice/Test The hypothesis is that the goals of the typography refresh can be achieved better without specifying any proprietary font. I don't think this discussion is an attack to the typography refresh project. I also respect your work, and your time. -- Quim Gil Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
