Andreas wrote: > Hi, > > first I would like to point out that I am totally open for a > discussion > about this. IMO bugzilla is just not the right place for it.
Thanks, that's great. Chris wrote: > Well, no they don't. They are requesting the font Microsoft calls > Tahoma, not a Wine-provided imitation of Tahoma. I didn't know that wine-provided Tahoma is not exactly the same as Microsoft Tahoma. I just knew it looked horrible. That is an important information, thank you. From now on I'll write "wine-Tahoma" when talking about wine-provided Tahoma to make it clear. Chris wrote: > Providing a font called Tahoma that isn't Tahoma is a bad idea. In > general, the fonts that are designed to copy other fonts get a different > name. In many cases, this is required because some font names are > trademarked (IIRC Helvetica is an example). > > Wine should not call their font Tahoma. They should call it something > else and then map requests for Tahoma to their imitation font. Is someone knowledgeable enough to put all the details and information together and open a ticket in wine bug-tracker? I can do it, but since I know nothing about fonts, my bug description might not explain the issue properly. Felix wrote: > It happens because: > > 1-Microsoft's TTF fonts are not in the browser's font path > > 2-a poor imitation of Tahoma named Tahoma is in the browser's font > path > > 3-Clueless web authors include Tahoma as a fallback to Verdana, which > is not > part of a standard Wine install, while the Tahoma impostor is This is a nice summary. Now, are we able to circumvent other people's mistakes and obstacles? I have to stress out one very important thing in case someone missed it: It is extremely easy to make a font available only to wine itself, it has a special directory for that. No other applications would see it. Andreas wrote: > As a packager I, however, find it important that for the > use-case of wine the best available user experience is provided. > Hence > this font needs to be included an pulled in by wine like it is > today. Let's assume we have moved wine-Tahoma to wine-specific font directory: 1. Wine users experience stays the same - all wine applications are still rendered correctly 2. General users experience improves - web browser doesn't display a lot of favorite web pages (like Facebook) with an ugly-looking font Now, what is wrong about that? Andreas, if there are packaging guidelines that would be broken, I'm sure we can receive an exception. I can find out the correct approach and I will gladly help you discuss that with relevant people. If you are afraid there might be people out there who want wine-Tahoma as a system font, it is important to realize that those people are probably just a tiny fraction of the other side of the argument (users who prefer good-looking websites) and we can easily adjust the README to explain how to make the font user-wide or system-wide if required (together with a note that this is *not* Microsoft Tahoma and final appearance will differ). Or is there any other reason why you feel reluctant to make wine-Tahoma available only to wine by default? Thanks. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
