On 02/15/2014 09:07 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Frankly, I think there has been a large degree of
intransigence on both
sides. The free font advocates have refused to identify the fonts that
I still miss an answer to
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/design/2013-December/001285.html
I don't want to repeat the points again, but let me summarize the root
of all the arguments against the specification of proprietary fonts:
Fonts are software, fonts are creative works. As a matter of principle,
Wikimedia doesn't use or promote proprietary software and proprietary
creative works for our sites. There should be a very good reason to
propose an exception to this principle.
Those proposing the typography change are putting a lot of effort and
the best of their intentions in offering the best solution for the
branches and leaves of this project. However, what is being questioned
here is the root, Wikimedia selecting explicitly proprietary fonts that
will become "a core visual element of Wikipedia's language." [1]
[1]
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh#Goals
--
Quim Gil
Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil