https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148257
--- Comment #15 from Eyal Rozenberg <eyalr...@gmx.com> --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #14) > setting the language, ... should be enough. I would be fine with the ability to set the language independently of the direction, but - what will map this setting to a change of font? > or explicitly setting direction and font, Neither of these are relevant in themselves. The entanglement with the direction setting is part of my problem here - I need to change the language regardless of the direction. > The problem that the "language group" tries to solve comes from not > all fonts having all glyphs etc. Yes, I assumed as much in comment #10. > This one should be WF Do you mean you're suggesting this issue be marked WFM? > and overall, we definitely need better *concept* for > handling of this complex issue - but the current state is based on (1) state > of the art - fonts have imperfect coverage; I wouldn't characterize it as "state of the art", because it's not something that is expected to change, or progress, in a different direction. It's perfectly ok for fonts to have partial coverage. (More on that below) > IMO, this could > only improve *much later*, when (1) is improved greatly You are proposing a paradigm change for distribution and design of fonts in general, that is way beyond the scope of LO. Its merits can be debated - I personally don't agree with your paradigm change - but it cannot be a factor in short-to-medium-term engineering decisions. If there was 100% consensus that this is where the world of fonts were going, then maybe you could argue against addressing issues such as this one. But - with due respect - it's just your opinion, or the opinion of some people (I've not heard this from others). So I don't believe it should have bearing on this issue. For now, LO should be able to let us force the use of any of fonts in the three language-groups which contain our glyphs of interest (e.g. the digits of a number). I agree that the language group is an artificial construct, but it is what LO associates a font right now, so either we allow setting a language group, or allow setting a language and have that auto-mapped to one of the groups (and thus also group fonts). --------------- Sidenote: My idea for a long term alternative to the "language group" is one of two, both involving multiple fonts: 1. A font preference list: To decide which font is used for a glyph, one searches a list of decreasing preference, and the first font with that glyph available is chosen. 2. A glyph set map: The Unicode plane / set of all characters is subdivided into sets (e.g. represented as a list of ranges), each mapped to a font. Simple division templates would be "all from font F1", "strongly-language-L glyhps from F1, the rest from F2" and a few others. In both of these, advanced users would be offered a dialog (pane) for arbitrarily modifying the list/map. This does not cover the issue of skewing the preferences for characters which may be part of different Unicode text runs, and thus perceived as part of sequences in different languages - like numbers, or punctuation marks. But the specifics would take more thinking and are even farther beyond the scope of this bug. --------------- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
