[Koha-bugs] [Bug 22983] The Koha copy of NotoSans font (in the new OPAC) lacks glyphs for (some) Roman letters with diacritics

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.koha-community.org]

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=22983

--- Comment #12 from David Cook <dcook at prosentient.com.au> ---
As an aside, I find this file from Google to be interesting:
https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Noto+Sans&display=swap

Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, Vietnamese, Devanagari are listed... yet Noto Sans
describes itself as a font for Latin, Cyrillic, and Greek at
https://fonts.google.com/noto/specimen/Noto+Sans.

That said, it does say that it's "also suitable as the complementary choice for
other script-specific Noto Sans fonts". If you look at
https://fonts.google.com/noto/fonts?noto.continent=Americas, you can see that
it says Noto Sans supports 855 languages. 

There are a lot of languages that Noto Sans doesn't support though. Notable
exceptions are Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Arabic. They have their own
fonts. 

Even Devanagari has its own font, so it's interesting to see it included in
that top link...

I've played with TTF and OTF files, but I don't have experience with WOFF
files. Check out the imports apparently needed to support the Noto Sans TC
font: https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Noto+Sans+TC&display=swap

That's 101 different URLs. 

Perhaps it's for performance reasons. As you can see with "unicode-range", the
browser will determine which source file to use depending on the Unicode code
point of the character it is rendering. By splitting up the files, you'd be
able to download faster since your browser can use something like 8 concurrent
fetches and probably lazy-load the source file you need. 

--

Overall, I think it's best to rely on local system fonts... although I can see
wanting to use web fonts to have a more consistent font display across
browsers.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.