This is a further enhancement over the enhancement proposed in bug 159950: Some fonts can't be offered for free download due to copyright law; but of these, some have known metric equivalents, which may not look the same, but when used - will result in a document with almost-identical, or identical, layout. Prominent examples are the Liberation typefaces: Liberation Serif, Sans and Mono, which have the same metrics as Times New Roman, Arial and Courier New. The latter used to be the default fonts used in Microsoft Office, until 2007. We actually bundle these same-metric fonts, but obviously we're not going to bundle metric equivalents for _all_ popular typefaces of all office suites / typesetting software. So, if we're already offering downloads of fonts - why not offer metric-equivalents for typefaces when we have only them, rather than the font itself? Note that, if we do this, we could even decide to drop some of our bundled font files in favor of later dynamic download when they're actually needed.
Liberation, Croscore, Croscore-extra fonts have served us well. But as can be seen on this Wikipedia listing [1] the FOSS font scape is pretty sparse. Meaning, users needing specific *commercial* fonts will continue to be on their own to procure for individual use or depending on business licensing. That does not change whether TDF/LO hosts or provides links/extension--which as has been noted incurs considerable support burden. So not clear there is any real advantage to this enhancement. Of more immediate concern for cross-office program interoperability is emergent need for a metrically equivalent font to the Aptos family as Calibri has been dropped as default MS Office text font--diluting utility of the croscore-extra Carlito font the project deploys in addition to the Liberation fonts. =-ref-= [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_Unicode_typefaces
(pls don't add me in cc, Eyal)
To be subsumed under bug 159950, which is bug 103140 and/or bug 91886.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #3) * Bug 91886 regards bundled fonts at LO installation time, this one regards non-bundled fonts and the time we open a document containing them. * Bug 103140 regards the destination folder for the installation of fonts. It is orthogonal to all of 159950, 103140, 91886 and this bug. * This bug depends on the ability to download and install fonts dynamically at run-time (which is bug 159950) - but suggests a more complex logic than just looking for a specific font. Bug 159950 can be resolved without this one being resolved. But - if there is consensus that this capability is desired along with straight-up font download - I am not against this bug being closed and the decision be clarified in bug 159950. I still thinmk it's better to leave this open (and NEW) until 159950 is implemented.
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #1) > Liberation, Croscore, Croscore-extra fonts have served us well. But as can > be seen on this Wikipedia listing [1] the FOSS font scape is pretty sparse. > Meaning, users needing specific *commercial* fonts will continue to be on > their own to procure for individual use or depending on business licensing. It's true that the FOSS fontscape is sparse, but - there is still too much for us to bundle, even if we limit ourselves to just metric-equivalents. > That does not change whether TDF/LO hosts or provides links/extension--which > as has been noted incurs considerable support burden. So not clear there is > any real advantage to this enhancement. Let's consider the metric equivalents we know about so far. How often have locations for these fonts changed? How often have new ones been added? IIANM, years go by with no changes. One just has to add a unit test to check the links. > Of more immediate concern for cross-office program interoperability is > emergent need for a metrically equivalent font to ... Aptos That's certainly very important, but I wouldn't say that detracts from the relevance of this bug.