Hoi, When we want to make more content available, providing better support for fonts would be at least of equal value. Many articles about languages resort to images to show text. For many languages fonts are not provided. For many scripts there is not even complete support in Unicode.
Given the aims of our Foundation, I would argue that fonts are more central to our ideals then supporting codecs.
Thanks, GerardM
On 7/20/07, Roger Luethi collector@hellgate.ch wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:20:24 +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
I think we should base such a decision on hard numbers as much as possible. It's hard to define a "threshold of tolerance" for proprietary formats, but, making up a couple of numbers on the spot, if
- two-thirds of users can play the file in question without installing
additional software;
Isn't that saying "it must be supported by the default Windows install", just in different words? Flash could make the list, but that might already be the end of it. I doubt even Java would make it.
I see the benefits of making content more accessible, but I'd prefer the foundation focusing on efforts to ease the installation of free codecs. If more users had free codecs installed, it would benefit us all.
Roger
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l