https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262410
--- Comment #34 from Akira TAGOH <ta...@redhat.com> --- (In reply to Oleg Oshmyan from comment #33) > > we can't guess a language from a character coverage completely, > > particularly if it is all-in-one font. > > Yes; that's why glyph-coverage-based language lists aren't as useful as > human-set fonts.conf language lists. Well, I don't mean to that. Actually they are useful more than checking a pinpoint char coverage like libass does. We can't guess a language representation coverage for a font from a character but if it is a set of characters, the guess would be somewhat better than single. "lang" guarantees minimal character coverage for the language. maybe the name "lang" may causes a confusion though. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262410 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202262410%23c34 -- _______________________________________________ fonts-bugs mailing list -- fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to fonts-bugs-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
