- From: Todd Fahrner <fahrner@pobox.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:56:55 -0800
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Tim Bagot <tsb@earth.li>
- Cc: Style Sheet mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
At 2:08 AM +0100 2/28/00, 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 script and fantasy are nearly useless, yes. they seem to be there for the sake of 'completeness' rather than real descriptive value. but if completeness, however useless, was the goal, why not "symbol" as a sixth set? Cultural background (check one): () Maori () Finno-Ugric () Indo-European () Foreign At least if you see something in whatever "fantasy" script your UA uses, you can guess that the designer probably intended something quite different. > > 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. Seems to me that the italics associated with most serif faces are more cursive than "serif". And is Comic Sans cursive (because "handwritten"), sans-serif (because it is), or fantasy (because it just doesn't fit alongside either Florid Script or Helvetica)? -- Todd Fahrner
Received on Sunday, 27 February 2000 20:57:03 UTC