https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35538
Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |NEW Resolution|NOTABUG |--- --- Comment #75 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to خالد حسني from comment #14) Ok, so, this is the bug I should have reopened. I made a bit of a mess and I apologize. Now on to my scathing comments... > We only support R/B/I/BI font family model for various legacy > and compatibility reasons The fact that it is easier not to support additional variants, and to force this 2x2 dichotomy, because of how we've done things in the past, or because some inputs have this model, does not legitimize us keeping this limitation. It might mean more work to support a more expressive font selection/specification mechanism and maintain compatibility, but - that's just the work that's required. > and that is why families with styles other than these > four get handles as separate font families. This is intentional and not a bug. It's a bug, even if done intentionally. "Done intentionally" just means someone made the wrong call. It is unreasonable for an office suite to just decide it won't properly support things like a style for making one's font oblique, or increasing the weight to a certain fraction of the maximum etc., because of an ugly "jerry-rigging" of variants into a separate font family. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
