W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2000

Re: generic fonts and italic vs oblique

From: Todd Fahrner <fahrner@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:56:55 -0800
Message-Id: <v04220801b4df7e79cc83@[209.21.38.64]>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:04 GMT