Quoting Paul Wise (2020-11-20 02:43:52) > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 6:54 PM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > I would indeed not use raw listings of more than 50 entries, but > > would try find ways to summarize the information most sensibly. > > Would it be useful to (automatically) group large lists of languages > into families? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_family > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_language_families
I don't think listing language families really helps. For fonts where large coverage is a priority I think we should ideally list explicitly all languages that are _fully_ covered. Fonts covering more languages than reasonable to list in a package description should then be split into one package per (large coverage) language group. Because someone interested in displaying glyphs for a specific language is not really helped to be informed that "lots of lanugages are covered" and only slightly better to know that "languages in your language family is covered". I still remember the mess in the 90's where danish ligatures were often missing even from commercial fonts, and would love if we could provide actually useful information about coverage. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
