- From: r12a via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:28:37 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Here are a couple of thoughts: 1. 'serif' and 'sans-serif' only apply to a small handful of writing scripts. For my [font-finder tool](https://r12a.github.io/scripts/fontlist/) i ended up dividing fonts into 'modulated' and 'monoline' (although some were a bit of both). Serif and sans-serif map mostly to those two classifications – at least they do so better than serif and sans-serif map to most non-latin fonts. 2. i classified the fonts in my lists by various writing styles, such as [arabic](https://r12a.github.io/scripts/fontlist/?script=arab#result) thuluth, ruqa, kano, kufi, etc. Anything that didn't have an alternative 'generic type' was then classified as either monoline or modulated. I'm thinking of redoing those groupings to fall better along writing style lines, so don't get hung up on the current classifications. What does come out of that, however, is that a ruqa font would never be classified as a kufi or nastaliq font: those are exclusive denominations. However, a ruqa font could be either monoline or modulated. So this suggests that the distinction kind of holds as described above, although i wouldn't use those terms. I think that 'general purpose' should possibly be 'stylised', though 'script-specific' may be ok. But i would mover cursive and fantasy into the stylised bucket. 3. One other category that can also be a script-specific style and a modulated/monoline style is handwritten. Also my (not very scientific) group of 'heavy' styles may be the same. So we may need a 3rd dimension for classifying these things. -- GitHub Notification of comment by r12a Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5053#issuecomment-865215740 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 21 June 2021 17:29:46 UTC