https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153043
Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Writer should not declare |Writer should not declare |CJK (or RTL-CTL) fonts when |CJK (RTL-CTL) fonts when |if CJK (resp. RTL-CTL) |CJK (resp. RTL-CTL) support |support disabled |disabled --- Comment #11 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #10) Let me start with a meta-reply: Our deeper disagreement seems to be about whether or not an ODF document must fully define the styling of _all_ possible content, not just the content in the actual document; or whether unused styling can remain undefined. The argument for full-definition seems to be: FD1. If such a document is modified by different people, they are likely to define inconsistent styling (of those aspects not defined in the original document) My arguments for partial definition are: PD1. There is benefit in documents only containing anything the user was not aware they are inserting into the document. Whoever opens the document can't tell whether the author actually wanted any RTL-CTL content, for example, to be set in the font specified in styles.xml, or whether the app just inserted some default. PD2. This Allows for the creation of smaller documents, and particularly, shorter styles.xml file. This is most relevant for testcases and sample document. PD3. The aspects of styling which the user does not set explicitly and does not use (e.g. RTL-CTL font), and which would be set to some default, are likely to not match the specified styles well; thus, if/when they come into effect, the document would be poorly-styled, or otherwise - the effect would be the same as with no-styling, i.e. each user (among several potential collaborators) would set it to something different. In these cases there will have been no benefit in for PD4. The default choice of RTL-CTL font is likely to not cover many Unicode characters of various RTL-CTL languages. For those characters, even the specification of the font in styles.xml does not _really_ specify which font is used. And, in fact, LO today doesn't even have the capability of specifying fallbacks properly (*) - so if users were to add content in those languages, they would again each be using their own different fallback font. Now back to the bickering: > (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #8) > (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #9) > > It's not a mess, because none of them uses CJK. > > Don't you find that my words above explicitly say otherwise? You did say that, but I was talking about the scenario of CJK not being used. I assume you concede that while CJK is not used no mess is created, and proceed to the case you want to focus on, which is multiple collaborators who independently introduce CJK content without one disseminating an update to all the others. In that case, the "mess" is a conflict of styles: Say, one user who added CJK chose font family FooCJK, and another chose BarCJK. And this conflict will need to be resolved. But like I said in my last comment - that's no different from settling differences in edits to the text. In fact, I believe your approach sometime results in the need for more need for style conflict resolution, because if two people write a document from scratch, and then want to merge it - with your approach, they will need to harmonize the differences in all undefined styles they had not even given any though to (and may not even know about). > Don't you find that the same can be said about work *without* a template > (when people start creating their own document without any prior > preparational work); I didn't mention templates anywhere... what does it matter if this scenario happens with or without a template? > and the template idea is exactly to *prevent* such a situation ;) We could have the same argument about templates. If a group of people don't use CJK, and want to work on some documents based on a template - why should that template define any CJK fonts? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
