Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-fonts] generic font families may vs should map to multiple concrete font families (#5053)

> Even if the connotations of using a cursive script can be very different from script to script, then notion that there exists a cursive variants seems applicable to most (all?) writing systems. What does classifying it as "script-specific" get us?

It means I don't believe that it is applicable to most writing systems. Remember the Kai != Cursive discussion. Cursive may somewhat map to "brush or pen strokes" but mapping that in turn to "informal, playful" is culturally specific.

> And if it's something else, I don't know what.

I don't recall the discussions around adding that one and confess to not really understanding it. It it equates to "colorful, not monochrome" then it should be renamed.

> putting fantasy in "script-specific" is probably fine. But putting it in "deprecated", with behavior up to the UA (including an allowance to just ignore it) might work too.

Can we kill it with fire? Please?


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by svgeesus
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5053#issuecomment-865222234 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 17:41:29 UTC