On 10/29/2013 07:14 PM, Daniel Friesen wrote:
The
extremely few users who manually customize their font-matching can
still override e.g. what "Nimbus Sans L" points to on their machine.
You're basically suggesting that users who have customized their
browsers/OS to handle the patterns used on the majority of the internet
– many who may have done a C&P from a tutorial and actually know nothing
about the config itself – re-customize their browser/OS to support one
website/organization.
Do you really think a significant number of users have manually
customized (even by copy-and-pasting commands) the font-matching on
their machine?
I think that is a small minority, much less even than those who
customized their browser's serif or sans-serif fonts (itself small in
relative terms).
Matt Flaschen
I might agree if there were some tangible benefit to breaking things
for
those few users. But the only rationale so far for practically breaking
visual improvements which even a few readers may have done by explicitly
naming open fonts is some vague sense of FOSS idealism that dosen't
provide a single practical improvement for any reader since it doesn't
actually change the fonts used by the default OS config readers use.
It basically harasses FOSS users with local customizations to do
something that doesn't provide any benefits for other FOSS users. I see
nothing but a net loss.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [