Content deleted Content added
Line 48:
:::I agree there should be as many as necessary. But OTOH there could be hundreds of groups, depending on how someone might want to categorize things. Are all of them really "necessary"? What determines the necessity? If multiple groups are fully and well-served by the same font stack, there's no harm in combining those groups under a more generic name. Having additional groups has consequences. It takes more editorial effort to support them. Someone needs to assess fonts to see find how well they support all the groups: additional groups means additional effort. Someone has to update common.css (because it's locked) if font support changes: more small groups seems like it would yield a greater chance of something changing more frequently. So while, in theory, I think it would be great if we could precisely define each "grouping" of symbol usage, we need to be practical too.
:::This template is meant to supplement existing ones (e.g. {{tl|IPA}}, {{tl|script}}), although the others could be subsumed by this one if that were desired. (Basically, they all are a way of saying "I choose ''this'' font stack to display these characters with".) No other template allows for "arbitrary" groups of characters, and none specifically deals with dingbats. ⇔ <span style="font-size-adjust:0.54; font-family:'P22 Declaration Script','American Scribe','National Archive', Ovidius, 'Ovidius Script', 'Horizon BT', 'Final Frontier Old Style', Charcoal, Virtue;">[[User:ChristTrekker|ChristTrekker]]</span> 15:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
::::I think you proposed somewhere that before the fonts were put in common.css they should stay in this template for a trial period. If we do that at first, we could peruse Wikipedia looking for cases where this template might help, and update it as we find them. That is how to know what is necessary. [[User:Gorobay|Gorobay]] ([[User talk:Gorobay|talk]]) 17:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
| |||