Tim Bagot wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Chris Lilley wrote: > > > Or we could drop cursive and fantasy, as being basically useless.... > > I would certainly agree that fantasy seems rather useless, mainly because > it is so vague. yes > cursive, OTOH, is likely, IIUC, to be the usual style for > Arabic, and various Indic scripts (and assorted others that don't spring > to mind quite so quickly). But that comes from their being written in a particular script, not from one of five styling choices. Arabic is a connected script, but not necessarily brushlike. It doesn't sharemuch with the assorted "cursive" fonts used for the Latin alphabet. -- ChrisReceived on Sunday, 27 February 2000 20:08:43 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:04 GMT