https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91886
--- Comment #5 from Heiko Tietze <heiko.tietze@documentfoundation.org> ---
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #4)
Making new extension category for fonts is absolutely wrong IMO: as
mentioned, font management is OS feature, and those extensions would
effectively create a duplicating font management mechanism.
Which is exactly my argument against shipping fonts that users cannot get rid
of. All those who don't care about compatibility, use own templates, don't want
the Noto overkill... IMHO the extension solution gives users more freedom.
My take:
Summary: "Make fonts extensionizable"
Hardware/platform: All
Blocks: <none>
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Context
- [Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 91886] Make font installation optional · bugzilla-daemon
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.