On 30/04/12 01:35 PM, Ingo Brückl wrote:
>
> Hubert Figuière wrote on Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:13:52 -0700:
>
>>>> This is probably as bad. Because you again assume a runtime condition at
>>>> compile time. And this is not good at all.
>>>
>>> I don't assume, I request.
>
>> Potato vs potato.
>> Seriously?
>
> Yes. It is disabled by default, so there will be no change to what we're
> having so far. Only if you explicitly give this option, something will
> change.
So we can just remove it :-)
>> Fonts are NOT libraries. Fonts can be uninstalled or installed at will.
>> Font substitution is a complex problem.
>
> It sure is, but there may be no Symbol (which AbiWord assumes and requests)
> available as well. Is that a problem?
Likely.
Note: at no time I did deny the bug. Just that fixing it with compile
time checks is not part of the solution. Just part of another problem.
> We assume that there is Symbol (or
> fontconfig will find us a substitute which may be suitable or not). Now you
> can configure to use Standard Symbols L (which may be available or fontconfig
> will find us a substitute which may be suitable or not). That doesn't worsen
> anything, does it? (It does indeed improve things for people having Standard
> Symbols L.)
You could implement a logic that if "Symbol" isn't here, you fallback on
"Standard Symbols L".
There are plenty of things that are wrong with our font management,
including using the default MS fonts, etc.
Hub
Received on Mon Apr 30 23:01:21 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 30 2012 - 23:01:21 CEST