From: Patrick Andries (Patrick.Andries@xcential.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 20:25:37 EDT
In section 3.4, UTR No. 20 speaks of « cursively-connected scripts».
Unicode 4.0's glossary defines cursive as « writing where the letters of a
word are connected » (I have the same definition in a large French book
about the history of calligraphy)
Given this definition, isn't it redundant to speak of cursively-connected
scripts or are some cursive scripts not characterized by their letters being
(*) Maybe some early roman cursives from the IInd-IIIrd century A.D ? But
is the definition of cursive correct then ?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 21:02:01 EDT