https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172824
--- Comment #14 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- I disapprove. (In reply to Mr Beedell, Roke Julian Lockhart from comment #0) > As aforestated, “Considering that AOSP (SDK ⋛ 35), That's: 1. A Google-controlled environment, 2. for mobile phones and tablets > and all desktop Linux distributions, utilise Noto Sans by default 1. That's just false. Unless I've misunderstood your claim. 2. I assume you meant Noto Serif for Writer, Noto Sans for Calc, Impress and Draw. > why does LO utilise Liberation, rather than Noto? It doesn't utilize Liberation except for 'Western' scripts; and even that is just because we currently don't support per-script fonts (see bug 151215 and others). > I ask because Noto covers effectively every code-point, > whereas Liberation does not." [^1] That may be, be that doesn't mean it covers them _well_. In Hebrew, for example, Noto Serif is a poor typeface (IMNSHO), and is weirdly shaped and self-misaligned. We (= Hebrew speakers) have actually undergone a process for selecting a body + header typefaces, and the result seems to be well-received. Nobody even suggested Noto Serif as an option. In Arabic, Noto Serif doesn't even exist. And Noto Sans Arabic I wouldn't like as the default font - although native Arabic & Persian users' opinion should carry more weight than mine on this. > To elaborate, as stated in previous, relevant discussions, Liberation > Serif's geometry of its ASCII characters approximately equivalates that of > Times New Roman, which used to be Microsoft Word's default. However, does > Liberation's sans-serif edition equivalate Calibri's geometry, which is its > current default? The current default is Aptos actually. Your point is well taken that the rationale for choosing Liberation was immitating MS Office, and this choice no longer achieves even that. (In reply to Verhoeckx from comment #4) > Because Noto has a very high coverage of languages, it can also be chosen > for other languages than English. It _can_, but that doesn't mean it _should_. For every script we bundle font files for (even if we cannot yet configure it as a default typeface for the relevant script), a proposal to change the default typeface should justify the new choice. Specifically, if you want to change the default typefaces for the Hebrew or the Arabic script, you need to make a convincing argument why the new typeface is better than the existing one. Finally - I also weakly-oppose because this font is associated with Google. Symbolically, I believe that is an association we should avoid. But like I said, that is a weak objection in itself. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
