https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66792
--- Comment #27 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to خالد حسني from comment #26) > (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #24) > > (In reply to خالد حسني from comment #23) > > > > Khaled, with respect - you can certainly express the opinion that it's not > > worth pursuing, but you can't "define-away" bugs. That goes even for > > unconfirmed ones, and certainly for confirmed bugs with multiple dupe > > reports and followers. > > It is not an opinion, it is a fact. We don’t have more than 4 styles per > family... And that is a recongized bug, 35538. Fonts _do_ have more variants than R/B/I/BI; so it's just that we semi-ignore that, and split the family into multiple families. This is a bug, because we're claiming that font families exist which simply do not. And ignoring or mis-representing aspects of a font is a bug. > If there are is no more than 4 styles per family, then the R/B/I/BI > button are enough It's not enough even then, for at least two reasons: 1. The weight of a font is not even a binary category. In CSS, for example, font weight is a number ranging between 100 and 900 (although it seems to be discrete in increments of 100), with "normal" being 400 and "bold" being 700. In principle, a procedurally-drawn font can have its weight be a continuous sequence with fractional values; and even if we don't go this far, the user needs to be able to define styles with the level of boldness they want, to effect a gradation; and when bug 127702 is resolved, the user would be able to have a style saying "1 increment more bold than the underlying style" or "25% more bold than the underlying style". That requires weight to be a numeric category, not just another aspect of the variant. 2. Some fonts have an oblique variant rather than an italic one. IIANM (and I may be wrong) we currently treat the former as the latter. If we don't do that, we'll prevent people from using the Oblique variant. And both these behaviors are problematic. > If you want to have more than 4 styles per font family (which is a valid > feature request, though I’d be inclined to close it as WONTFIX It is not something that "I want". Fonts _do_ objectively have more than 4 variants; and we must support those. It's not a feature request of mine, it has been recognized that LO's lack of support for this is a bug, bug 35538. > and keeping this issue open because we will need it once an unimplemented > feature gets implemented makes no sense. I mistakenly reopened 112973 instead of 35538, which is the one I meant to. If 33538 is open, which it is and should be unless a discussion has been held in which people have been convinced it should be closed, then it makes sense for this to remain open. Again, sorry for the bug number mixup. The thing is, once a bug has been marked NEW, people - even respected developers - can't just close it. They can argue for closing it and consider the reactions. 2. plus, 2. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
