https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167686
V Stuart Foote <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugs.documentfounda | |tion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16 | |6079 Blocks| |71732 CC| |[email protected], | |[email protected], | |[email protected], | |[email protected], | |[email protected] --- Comment #3 from V Stuart Foote <[email protected]> --- Real issue is how to extract each font's full set of Smart Font (SF) features, and then how to represent those features in a UI to make feature selections. Followed by applying the feature, and being able to identifying a font feature that is assigned to text runs in document view, and ultimately when recorded into the ODF (issues of see also bug 166079). Problem already is that most Graphite based SF, and a growing set of OTF fonts, have extensive SF stylistic and alternative forms embedded internal to the font. Some are so numerous they already overwhelm the font 'Features...' dialog. For example look at the 'Features...' dialog for the Graphite SF enhanced "Linux Biolinum G" or "Linux Libertine G/Linux Libertine Display G" that László had published. Or any of the "Libertinus" OTF SF family Khaled had worked on. But that is the nature of the SF features, there can be a lot and there is no good way to "lighten" the representation of them in UI for selection or review. More so if we were to start labeling those with "binary" selections by radio button/checkbox. While those with multiple choices per element *ARE* best represented via listbox (the font designer is responsible for annotating each SF as appropriate). And then once selected and applied, currently each SF is DF applied to a text run and exposed to UI only in the Font Name widget resident on the Formatting tb (again bug 166079). Personally, I think the current dialog and Graphite/OTF Smart Font handling that László, Martin, Tomaž, and Khaled cobbled together handles things pretty well. The current 'Features...' dialog was mainly Tomaž effort, so I'd like his and Khaled's input here for sure. Trying to identify font features that are binary as opposed to those with only two alternatives (i.e. have None, Aaa in a listbox) to support addition of a few checkbox/rb in the dialog is not going to improve things very much. More extensive refactoring of the UI is going to be needed, should work on bug 166079 ever happen. Absent that the 'Features...' dialog UI is suitable to task of handling SF features. IMHO => WF Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71732 [Bug 71732] [META] Bugs related to text rendering, typography and font features in LO -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
