On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Erwin Dokter erwin@darcoury.nl wrote:
On 08-04-2014 00:45, Steven Walling wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
I noticed from Kaldari's notes [1] that "Open sans" was rejected based
on language support and install base.
A similar example is Google's Noto font (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noto_fonts). 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.