Re: improvement of font selection

[Petr Tomasek <tomasek etf cuni cz>]

> > are available, which OpenType tables are available, which
> > features for which scripts are available.  As far as that
> > information is correct, how can we blame them?
> 
> That's not enough.  An ugly font if as good as a beautiful font
> as far as these metrics are concerned.  If you have ten fonts,
> each having glyphs for ten scripts, with varying degrees of
> quality and aesthetics, you have to manually order then in your
> fonts.conf for each script, cause they cannot be ordered
> independent of the script you are interested in.  Whether A is
> better than B depends on which script you are interested in,
> while if your fonts each had glyphs for a single script, you
> could easily compare every two fonts and say either 1) A is
> better than B, 2) B is better than A, 3) they don't compare,
> because they have glyphs for different scripts.  This way, the
> only thing you need to handle in fonts.conf is to order fonts of
> each script, and handle the differences between preferred fonts
> of languages using the same script.

But not everyone is capable of creating his own fonts.conf!

>From my experience, the problem is that many time a font
is choosen for particular unicode block, that covers only
part of it, even if you have installed font, that covers
it totally (or almost).

So IMHO the right way for font selection would be (unless
specified otherway in the fonts.conf of course) to try to select
the font (for particular unicode block) that covers this block
best.

P.T.
-- 
Petr Tomasek <http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~tomasek>