From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 10:27:52 EDT
On 29/07/2003 17:25, Patrick Andries wrote:
> 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 ?
Note the following from Unicode 3.0 section 8.1;
A handwritten form of Hebrew is known as cursive, but its rounded
letters are generally unconnected, so the Unicode definition does not apply.
Presumably the same could be said of some forms of Latin script known as
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 11:10:56 EDT