- From: Titus Nemeth via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:09:40 +0000
- To: public-i18n-archive@w3.org
Re. ijam – this opens a much wider question: should Arabic terms be used, or should English terms be used, or a combination thereof? This can become quite tricky and controversial, not least because we're not talking about Arabic and Persian only. Urdu, Sindhi, etc. may have different terms again. It's a bit like the case of everybody talking about 'Farsi' rather than 'Persian' in an English language context. It's received a bit of criticism and mockery. I would think that it makes sense to use 'generally known' terms such as Naskh, and those without equivalent in English (say rasm) but I wonder where the line should be drawn for those that have an English equivalent. Based on the glossary definition ijam are diacritical signs. I guess the font – typeface distinction is lost in most conversations about typography on the web. People tend to use it synonymously, but it would be preferable to maintain a distinction. What is a 'font style' compared to a 'type style' and a 'writing style'? I'm sceptical of using 'font style' to describe a writing style, as happens in 2.7. -- GitHub Notification of comment by TitusNemeth Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/alreq/issues/205#issuecomment-555956621 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2019 11:09:42 UTC