W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2013

Re: [css-fonts] Chinese font Kai count as cursive

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:00:03 -0800 (PST)
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: 董福興 Bobby Tung <bobbytung@wanderer.tw>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1515734815.9369765.1384473603336.JavaMail.zimbra@mozilla.com>

fantasai wrote:

> Proposed edits:

>   1. In definition of 'serif' replace 'Kai' with 'Ming'.

Sounds fine.

>   2. In definition of 'serif' replace 'formal text' with 'traditional print'.

I don't think this really reflects a substantive change.  There are
pro's and con's to either way which makes me think we should leave it
alone.  The definition of generics is inherently ambiguous, there's
not much practical point in coming up with a precise definition since
that will often reflect more on the aesthetic perspective of the
person writing it rather than on a viewpoint that is somehow universal.

>   3. In definition of 'cursive' replace 'informal' with 'flowing'.

As with (2), I'm not sure this makes much of a difference.  The
generic 'cursive' is a bit of a throwaway.  It's a grab bag of an
assortment of styles.  There's a low probability the aesthetic sense
of the font chosen will actually be consistent across
platforms/scripts.

>   4. Add these examples to definition of 'cursive', same as for
>      'serif' and 'sans-serif': Kaisho (Japanese), Kai (Chinese).

Kaisho for Japanese is not really correct.  That's a more formal,
calligraphic style. As the existing example illustrates, Gyoshotai is
more appropriate.  As for Kai, I defer to the opinion of others.

Cheers,

John
Received on Friday, 15 November 2013 00:00:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:37 UTC