On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Erwin Dokter <erwin(a)darcoury.nl> wrote:
On 08-04-2014 00:45, Steven Walling wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Jon Robson
I noticed from Kaldari's notes  that "Open sans" was rejected based
> on language support and install base.
A similar example is Google's Noto font (
). It has basically no default
install base that I'm aware of, but it's focused on readability in as many
scripts as possible and is Apache-licensed.
Noto is useless without a suitable localization mechanism.
Erwin, can you help me understand what is a "suitable localization
mechanism"? I filed bug 59983 ("Investigate noto font as potential
replacement for diverse font families") back in January because I thought
it could help with localization, so I'd really like to grok this.