On 03.03.2016 00:50, David Kastrup wrote:
Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de> writes:
I hope you don’t mind if I keep the poll public.
On 03.03.2016 00:29, Ophir Lifshitz wrote:
Hello,
In my opinion, a "classical" look should not be used for a site
whose purpose is documentation, but, a font that is very easy to
read.
Perhaps one may argue about what kind of fonts is best to read, but
certainly Garamond is perfectly well legible?
I don't think we should specify non-free fonts. That would make
LilyPond's web site work better on people having installed non-free
fonts than on systems which do not.
Neither do I. There’s EB Garamond, which is free, but unfortunately
lacks a bold series, so it’s likely not an immediate candidate.
<http://www.georgduffner.at/ebgaramond/index.html> I was just hoping
that someone might come up with another good, free Garamond that had
escaped my notice – probably wishful thinking though.
Best, Simon
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
