On 27-Aug-2014 22:39:23 Dale Snell wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:04:27 -0400
> Doug McIlroy wrote:
>
>> Groff is open source. A conscientious author will strive
>> to make source--the whole source including documentation--as
>> easily portable as possible. Documentation created in the back
>> r
Hi,
Werner wrote:
> Mhmm. According to my dictionary `libertine' has more than a single
> meaning, some of them fitting into the idea of a freely available
> font. It's not restricted to `rake'.
Right. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/libertine
says
Noun
...
2.
>> I hope "Linux Libertine" is a joke that I don't happen to
>> understand.
>
> Linux Libertine is the name of a free/open typeface. Whether the
> name was a deliberate joke or not I do not know. Possibly someone
> forgot to look up "libertine" in the dictionary?
Mhmm. According to my diction
> Possibly someone forgot to look up "libertine" in the
> dictionary?
Wikipedia defines libertine as "one devoid of most moral
restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable".
Isn't that the epitome of "open"?
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:04:27 -0400
Doug McIlroy wrote:
> Groff is open source. A conscientious author will strive
> to make source--the whole source including documentation--as
> easily portable as possible. Documentation created in the back
> room and distributed only in PDF is the antithesis of
> Groff is open source. A conscientious author will strive
> to make source--the whole source including documentation--as
> easily portable as possible. Documentation created in the back
> room and distributed only in PDF is the antithesis of open.
I fully agree!
(Although this discussion not tou
Groff is open source. A conscientious author will strive
to make source--the whole source including documentation--as
easily portable as possible. Documentation created in the back
room and distributed only in PDF is the antithesis of open.
I hope "Linux Libertine" is a joke that I don't happen
> For the troff doc (from J. Osanna and BWK) I would suggest
> the traditional standard fonts. For the other documents
> Pierre-Jean has an idea for a replacement. Don't you agree
> with his proposal?
My point was that for someone simply downloading the sources
to install the program it is not
> > > Using private, non-standard, or not-included fonts to
> > > document the package with the fonts makes utterly no sense.
>
> > I agree and I can't understand Gunnar here.
>
> I think it's perfectly understandable. It's an advertising
> document, intended to show off the capabilities of the
> > Using private, non-standard, or not-included fonts to
> > document the package with the fonts makes utterly no sense.
> I agree and I can't understand Gunnar here.
I think it's perfectly understandable. It's an advertising
document, intended to show off the capabilities of the program.
*Of
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Pierre-Jean wrote:
> Blake McBride wrote:
>
> > The documents should be changed to use included or
> > standard fonts only.
>
> For the troff documentation I agree, we should use the
> default font.
>
> > If included or standard fonts are not good enough - take
>
Blake McBride wrote:
> The documents should be changed to use included or
> standard fonts only.
For the troff documentation I agree, we should use the
default font.
> If included or standard fonts are not good enough - take
> that up with X11 et al.
That's the case of the other documents, whic
> Using private, non-standard, or not-included fonts to document the package
> with the fonts makes utterly no sense. The documents should be changed to
> use included or standard fonts only. This will avoid every new user from
> questioning their build or the package itself. If included or stan
Using private, non-standard, or not-included fonts to document the package
with the fonts makes utterly no sense. The documents should be changed to
use included or standard fonts only. This will avoid every new user from
questioning their build or the package itself. If included or standard
fon
14 matches
Mail list logo
