On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 05:10:12PM +0000, Guenter Milde wrote: > On 2016-01-14, Guenter Milde wrote: > > Dear Scott and Kornel, > > what do you think about this proposed change: > > > The system font replacement is no longer necessary: > > > * It was a workaround to get working examples with 2.1. > > > * It has the drawback that it may become very complicated to understand > > and reproduce what is going on in case there is a failure. > > > * With 2.2 you can store alternative system fonts in the source, so the > > workaround is no longer required. > > > In the single case of "wrong" replacements (Hebrew: sans serif font for > > serif and monospaced, because there is no working serif and monospaced > > font), I propose to mark the example and manual docs as "inverted" > > and add a special purpose document with working fonts. If I understand correctly, and Kornel is OK with this, then I am OK with this but only after we actually change the system fonts in the source (maybe you already did this?). That is indeed a nice improvement for the user.
Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
