https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161941
Caolán McNamara <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ever confirmed|0 |1 Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] |desktop.org |om Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED --- Comment #30 from Caolán McNamara <[email protected]> --- The dev mailing list is probably a better place than a bugzilla issue for a general discussion as to whether we need processes to gatekeep what gets added by contributors either generally or just specifically for fonts. But on a few pieces: wrt 'This would not meaningfully help us with font replacement as MSO users do not get these fonts bundled with MSO', FWIW there is a "Cloud fonts list" section at https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/cloud-fonts-in-office-f7b009fe-037f-45ed-a556-b5fe6ede6adb which lists the fonts that are available to Microsoft 365 subscribers, and lists Agency FB, Baskerville Old Face, etc. There's also some related content at https://designtopresent.com/2024/06/20/a-guide-to-cloud-fonts-in-microsoft-office-365/ 'Is the "Google DocRepair project" an active effort we need to participate in?' I don't know of anything existing in LibreOffice that definitely fits there. There is the OpenSymbol font I suppose, but that's about it. I guess using that as a source to generate replacements for some Microsoft dingbat fonts is maybe plausible, but I don't think there was any serious effort to metrically match anything (except StarBats) when glyphs were added to OpenSymbol, but I don't know for sure. FWIW https://fonts.google.com/?query=The+DocRepair+Project is another useful link to see these fonts. 'if the clients of companies have signalled a need for replacement fonts or what other motivators there could be for shipping them.' The triggering sequence is more along the line of Collabora initially exploring what options exist for replacements of the relatively new contemporary MSOffice fonts and discovering that these other fonts exist along the way. Useful fonts to improve layout compatibility are a rare find, and to come across 7 all at once is exciting, even if they are not ultra-tier "pre selected as document default" fonts. 'we don't have anyone arguing that the commit is beneficial and thus justified' FWIW I think any fonts like these that help improve compatibility are a good thing. I have no numbers to indicate if it's a marginal improvement or a significant one but I think it is generally beneficial Anyhow, what I'll do is to merge https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/172337 to make bundling these docrepair fonts optional at build time, and default that to off. And we can make mention of it at the next ESC as to if that's the right default. (FWIW none of this typically affects the packages available through Linux distributions. which generally build --without-fonts to use the fonts packaged by the distro instead. So this affects what the standalone non-distro packages contain) If something like bug 159950 ever gets done then that's another future option of course, especially if we end up a a good place with hundreds of compatibility fonts. (On a technical note there, for the linux case we do have a certain ability to detect what fonts are missing from a document and request their installation from packagekit, but in practice we only do this for ultimate glyph fallback where there are no fonts available to render in a given language and just query for something that can render text in that language) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
