https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=151123
--- Comment #12 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Khaled Hosny from comment #10) > Then there is the none technical question: What it does really mean to say a > font supports language X? There is no single, correct, universally accepted > answer to this. Let's start with this dilemma, because I believe it's actually easier than it seems. Answering the question "can this this font said to cover/support script X?" - is indeed difficult. There is a gray area of having some glyphs but not others, and tracing a boundary is difficult. But - we don't have to do that! We can be more more lenient than that, and accept fonts which have a non-negligible number of glyphs from script X. In fact, we might even start with accepting a font which has even a single glyph which is distinctly of script X. We could be a little more strict, requiring at least 2, or at least 10. And we could make that threshold configurable, but frankly - I could live with any of them really, since in my experience, fonts either have "none", "most" or "all", and never "a few" of the glyphs for a given script. (There is a slight gotcha, which is the meaning of 'distinctly'. Many glyphs are shared between scripts, e.g. Greek vs Latin - even if they might have distinict Unicode code points; one might have many Greek glyphs through the availability of Latin ones.) For now, of course, we will need to make that determination regarding "language groups", or rather script types, to use the ODF term. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
