If you are unhappy about the outline part of Zen Hei, I can fully
understand that. The outline quality of the font is still a long way
from commercial ones. However, on the other hand, I can also see that
the outline fonts are entirely "usable" (as screen fonts), particularly
for those frequently used Chinese characters. It simply take years of
efforts to polish all the rough edges and make a good outline font, and
we are doing it everyday, you are welcome to report "sub-optimal"
characters or polish by yourself using our wiki.
But if you are complaining about the wqy bitmaps vs firefly's bitmaps,
that does seem to be a bit surprising. Based on my own observation from
most Chinese Linux online forums (particularly
http://forum.ubuntu.com.cn/), it is relatively rare to see similar
comments among simplified Chinese users (for traditional Chinese users,
some of them may prefer the Ming-Ti-styled serif decorations in
firefly's bitmaps).
I do support for a poll between different choices for CJK fonts. I
actually thought about doing it long time ago. A survey about the
preference of bitmap vs vector, Song vs Ming vs Hei, wqy bitmaps vs
firefly's vs simsun vs OpenSUSE Founder fonts will be very informative
for CJK font developers.
One thing I want to point out though, the 12pt CJK glyphs in wqy's fonts
are exact copies of Chinese National Standard GB19966-2005, which was
"professionally" developed by Beijing Founder Electronics (Fang Zheng).
Glyphs of other sizes in wqy's bitmaps were "standardized" using 12pt as
reference.
--
ttf-wqy-zenhei and other Chinese fonts got mixed up where the same style is expected
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/206018
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Simplified Chinese Translators, which is subscribed to ttf-wqy-zenhei in
ubuntu.