https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148257
--- Comment #11 from Eyal Rozenberg <eyalr...@gmx.com> --- I'll just make a clarification w.r.t. my tone. When I said "is not tolerable", I didn't mean to suggest I am accusing developers of having acted in an intolerable way. I meant to say that reason would not tolerate an affirmation of such a behavior as the appropriate one. On another note: Heiko, you said: > What bothers me in general on the ticket is using the language group for > layouting. Can you clarify what you meant by the word "layouting"? The way things stand right now seem to be the result of a choice of convenience, which often, or usually, works: If your document has, say, content in both Arabic and English, then the LTR runs are assumed to be Spanish, with the user wanting the font family they've chosen for 'Western' languages, as it likely has full coverage of the Latin-1 character set with the glyphs the user wants. And similarly, the RTL runs are assumed to be in Arabic, and the font to use for these would be the one covering the Unicode range for Arabic, which the user has likely chosen as its Complex scripts font. We are seeing a "corner case" of these assumptions not holding: Characters which are common to text in different language groups, which already undermines the assumptions somewhat, and are direction neutral, which makes them susceptible to be switched back and forth. But more generally - the assumptions don't hold: * A user may want/need, a more complex covering of the set of Unicode characters by different fonts - even if all text is in the same language (e.g. for characters like arrows, or numbers, or dingbats, or emojis). And the different fonts the user has may have complex intersections requiring a more involved logic for preferences. * There may be multiple languages used within the same language group, with the user needing different fonts for them. Obvious example: Hebrew and Arabic. I'm guessing that maybe even CJK authors may want a different font for Japanese and for Chinese, for example, even if many glyphs are shared between them. So, the question is (or one of the questions is): Should this specific issue be resolved by some kind of localized action, retaining the assumption-of-convenience from above, or should it upending that assumption? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
