Wiktionary:Votes/2012-06/Enabling WebFonts Extension

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2012-06/Enabling WebFonts Extension. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/2012-06/Enabling WebFonts Extension, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/2012-06/Enabling WebFonts Extension in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/2012-06/Enabling WebFonts Extension you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2012-06/Enabling WebFonts Extension will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/2012-06/Enabling WebFonts Extension, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Enabling WebFonts Extension

  • Voting on: Requesting of those with the ability to do so that they enable the WebFonts extension here on English Wiktionary.
  • Vote starts: 00:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Yair rand (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    Support - I wish the grammar in the proposal had been corrected, but this still seems like a good idea. --BB12 (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    If there's fault, it's largely mine, as I wrote current the version: but to be honest, I don't see anything wrong with the grammar.​—msh210℠ (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    I mentioned that I couldn't understand the meaning, but nobody else seems to have this trouble, so I guess it's not important. If you're interested in what I have trouble with, substituting "Jane and John" into this sentence results in, "Requesting of Jane and John that they enable the WebFonts extension here on English Wiktionary." To me, changing "of" to "that" and deleting "that they" fixes it. Perhaps only my internal grammar marks this as wrong :) --BB12 (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    Despite having edited the vote page, I was not paying attention to the talkpage, and I apologize. FWIW, "Requesting of Jane and John that they enable the WebFonts extension here on English Wiktionary" reads perfectly fine to me.​—msh210℠ (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    LOL. It must just be my internal grammar :) --BB12 (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    Support As it seems there's no better way to get embedded fonts to work, I'm supporting this. -- Liliana • 18:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    Support - -sche (discuss) 18:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I have changed my vote. - -sche (discuss) 18:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    Support.​—msh210℠ (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Waiting to vote until discussion on the talkpage is resolved.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support. Sure, why not? Certainly seems like a good idea. 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC) I was going to earlier, but I just wanted to wait to make sure that nobody more knowledgeable than me raised objections that I hadn't thought of. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    Support. One question though, does anyone know off-hand if this will work on un-rooted Android phones? Only the default font set on mine is pretty limited, and I'm hoping that this extension might fix the issue. (NB: this is not my only reason for supporting this proposal, just the most salient.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm striking and remaining on the fence for now, in light of Ruakh's comments below. (And if I should move this to the "Abstain" section below for the time being, please let me know.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose I just thought of some further things to try out on hi.WP (where this extension is installed), and it seems to have some problems. The worst of them is that it seems to break the browser's mechanism for falling back from an unavailable font to an available one. That might be fine if this extension covered all languages on Earth and used the absolute ideal font for each one, but it doesn't and doesn't, so this ends up being a pretty serious problem. The net result is that, if I'm not mistaken, our language/font support will end up being worse than it is now, rather than better. —RuakhTALK 17:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    I don't understand. I thought it doesn't change anything for languages it doesn't have a font for? And the fonts it does have are downloaded to the user? How could this result in worse support? --Yair rand (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    Let me preface this comment with: I need to dig deeper. I now think I misunderstood what I was seeing before — the problem is different from what I thought it was — so this may be academic. Unfortunately, I don't have time right this second to investigate further. Hopefully I'll have time tonight.   But to answer your question: If the extension caused font-family: 'font A', 'font B' to be equivalent to font-family: 'font A', as I was thinking it did, then this would greatly limit our ability to present users with the best available font for a given language. (For example, we couldn't say that the best Arabic font is 'Geeza Pro' for users who have it, but specify 'Arial Unicode MS' as a fallback to cover more users.)   But again, that may be academic. I need to investigate further. —RuakhTALK 19:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    Updated information on talk-page. There are some problems/limitations, but they're not as bad as I thought they were when I wrote the above. —RuakhTALK 13:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. Oppose due to Ruakh's comment and also this -- Liliana • 18:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    Does that work on IE? --Yair rand (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    I think not, but IIRC IE doesn't have a same origin policy so you can embed from other domains. (Is that right?) -- Liliana • 18:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    I don't think that's correct, actually. --Yair rand (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    I could've sworn I did some tests with IE a while ago and found out I could embed from any domain with nothing stopping me. Maybe it's my memory? -- Liliana • 02:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  2. Oppose due to Ruakh's comments, and Liliana's. - -sche (discuss) 18:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  3. The vote ends today (UTC) (though there's talk on the talkpage for extending it or canceling it) and I don't think it should pass right now, so I'm voting against it for now.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  4. Oppose solely on grounds that principal issues seem unresolved. If vote is extended and issues are resolved, I would change this vote. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Abstain BB12 (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC) It seems there are some issues that need to be worked out and the conversation is beyond me. --BB12 (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  2. Abstain —RuakhTALK 02:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Decision

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia