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

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

From: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:18:05 -0500
Message-ID: <CADJvFOUk+J61zxOjsv2UKTAiOztMavwr7tYE5tDYT7DYDuTuOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stewart Baker <bakersc@mail.wou.edu>
Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, 董福興 Bobby Tung <bobbytung@wanderer.tw>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
2013/11/15 Stewart Baker <bakersc@mail.wou.edu>:
> Cursive, according to the OED, means "written with a running hand," i.e.
> without lifting the writing implement between strokes.
>
> "Written with a running hand, so that the characters are rapidly formed
> without raising the pen, and in consequence have their angles rounded, and
> separate strokes joined, and at length become slanted."
>
> Like John, I'm not sure matters of a single line definition of the word
> "cursive" are of earth-shattering import.  However, it is the case that
> cursive is (technically) more a matter of style than formality, so changing
> to "flowing" or something similar might make sense.  (Although not italic,
> as they aren't really synonyms.  Cursive is often italic, but italic is not
> always cursive.  Since there is already an italic in HTML, it might be best
> to drop any comparison to that.)
>

Indeed cursive is not always italic (I mentioned this), but true
italics—as opposed to obliques—are always cursive.

I don’t usually side with Wikipedia editing policy in these matters,
but in terms of typographic knowledge the OED is not a credible
source.

-- 
cheers,
-ambrose <http://gniw.ca>
Received on Friday, 15 November 2013 16:18:33 UTC

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