https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161941
--- Comment #13 from Buovjaga <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Timur from comment #11) > Heiko conformed without explanation. Which does not seem justified IMO as > this is not self-explanatory. > IIUC there are 2 arguments agains: rarely used and Google sponsored. > Regardless if rarely, any metric compatible font is useful IMO. Font > replacement is significant weakness of LO in real world where majority > unfortunatelly uses MSO. Instead of discussing how to better replace other > common fonts, for example Aptos or Segoe family, here is discussed how to > step back. > As for Google, that is Sign of the Beast, together with others, and that is > mostly about tehcnology, etc. But in this specific example, I do not see > valid explanation on the adverse effects of using these fonts. That's not a correct summary of the arguments. Arguments against: - rarely used - we should be really selective on what fonts we bundle - we should rather implement a way to download recommended fonts Arguments for: - Google sponsored the work, so Google must have some statistics on the use of these fonts that we can't access (this is the reason I did my own investigation based on crash testing corpus) Nobody is saying that Google's involvement would be a negative. Google sponsoring an alternative to Aptos would be welcomed with open arms. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
