I did ask the language group for a list of WMF fonts at the outset. I am
still very open to any guidance. That said, web fonts have very different
requirements than high quality typographic fonts. As one example, web
fonts need to have small file sizes. File size doesn't matter for
typographic fonts, but they need to support bold face, italics, and
advanced open type features for proper ligatures, kerning, accent
placement, etc. In addition, since many articles combine short segments of
text in different languages, I have tried to identify high quality fonts
with a consistent style (serif fonts, consistent weight, etc).
So far it has been most productive for me to respond to individual language
speakers who can provide specific font recommendations for specific
language groups. If someone wants to assemble a canonical list of WMF
fonts for particular wikis as well as where the sources for those fonts can
be found, that might be helpful. But most helpful would be reviewing the
output in a specific script and letting me know if the font chosen is
inappropriate (bad ligatures, overly casual, etc).
--scott
ps. and as to the root cause: the naming inconsistencies are with respect
to the *package name*, not the *font name*. Even if Karthik is successful,
that will just be a debian package. I would still have the same issues
getting the fonts installed on Ubuntu LTS, Ubuntu 13, Fedora, etc, etc. So
while knowing the names of the WMF fonts is helpful, especially long term,
it's not the problem we're trying to solve right now.