[css-fonts] Specify what generic font family maps to nastaliq

[hsivonen]

The section Generic font families does not say how to generically request a nastaliq font for the Arabic script. Anecdotally, the distinction of having a specifically nastaliq font is important enough in the Urdu context that Microsoft and Google bundle a nastaliq font with their operating systems for Urdu.

It seems to me that it would be good to explicitly specify which generic keyword means nastaliq, either by specifying that the cursive family means nastaliq for the Arabic script or by minting a new keyword for as was done for fangsong. (I don't know which option is more appropriate, but I'm guessing that using the existing cursive keyword should be sufficient.)

[frivoal]

I wonder whether there's much preexisting use of the cursive value for Arabic script content, and if so, whether authors of pages that use that have been expecting a nastiliq font already, or something else.

Another consideration: when nasatilq text contains bits of text in non Arabic scripts, what sort of fonts do they typically use? Certainly authors could select and style these separately, but if they don't it's interesting to know whether a cursive Latin / Chinese / ??? font would generally be a good match or not.

Relatedly, If we end up not using cursive and minting a new keyword, we should also give some thoughts to what sort of fonts that keyword ought to be mapping to for non-Arabic text.

[tabatkins]

@drott @r12a ?

[fantasai]

@behdad

[heycam]

@jfkthame ?

[litherum]

I discussed this with some of my colleagues internally, and we would prefer a new keyword. Following the model of fangsong sounds like a good path forward.

[svgeesus]

@shervinafshar @ntounsi @behnam your input on a new CSS generic font family nastaliq would be welcome.

Related to w3c/alreq#9

[svgeesus]

Useful background:

• Urdu Nastaliq justification (PDF)
• Font and Typographical Considerations for Arabic

[jfkthame]

I'm not sure creating more generic family names is the best solution here (I have my doubts about fangsong too, TBH, though I'm less familiar with Chinese writing traditions) for something that is so specific to a particular script and language(s). It's completely unclear what these names ought to mean when applied to any content other than the particular script they're targeting.

ISTM it would be appropriate for a UA to map the serif and/or sans-serif generics to Nastaliq faces in the case where the script is Arabic and the content language is tagged as Urdu, or other languages that are known to prefer this style (e.g. Punjabi, Saraiki, Balochi, Pashto -- the latter two perhaps only when the region is Pakistan, I'm not sure of the conventions in Iran or Afghanistan).

Mapping cursive to a Nastaliq face might be useful for languages like Arabic or Persian where the serif and sans-serif generics typically map to simplified Naskh-like faces, although there are other reasonable cursive mappings that could also be considered, like Ruq'ah or Diwani faces. Authors who want full control of the script style should really be providing appropriate webfonts in most cases.

[tabatkins]

Yeah, fangsong was defined as a separate keyword only because it was an "intermediate" style between two existing styles that already had reasonable mappings to the existing keywords (serif and cursive); there simply wasn't a keyword around that we could map it to.

I'm far from an expert, but it looks like nastaliq isn't in the same position, and we could map it to an existing keyword.