- From: Chris Lilley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:39:41 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> 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