https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172824
Mr. Beedell, Roke Julian Lockhart (RJLB) <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL|As I originally stated |https://bugs.documentfounda |elsewhere, [^1] |tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17 |“Considering that AOSP (SDK |2713#c3:~:text=considering% |⋛ 35), and all desktop |20that%20AOSP%20%28SDK%20%E |Linux distributions, |2%8B%9B%2035,it%20does%20no |utilise Noto Sans by |t%2C%20consider%20Noto%2E |default, why does LO | |utilise Liberation, rather | |than Noto? I ask because | |Noto covers effectively | |every code-point, whereas | |Liberation does not. Some | |locations assert, which | |Comment 2 may corroborate, | |that Liberation Serif's | |geometry of its ASCII | |characters approximately | |equivalates that of Times | |New Roman. However, does | |Liberation's sans-serif | |edition equivalate | |Calibri's geometry? If | |geometry is the most | |important attribute, and it | |does not, consider Noto.” | |[^1]: | |https://bugs.documentfounda | |tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17 | |2713#c3:~:text=considering% | |20that%20AOSP%20%28SDK%20%E | |2%8B%9B%2035,it%20does%20no | |t%2C%20consider%20Noto%2E | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
