Doug Ewell wrote: > > In a message dated 2001-02-20 04:21:49 Pacific Standard Time, Funilly, the message I got is stamped 03:36:27 PST... > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > A nit to pick: It's the latin alphabet, not roman. Roman is a kind of > > typeface, contrasting to sans serif aka grotesque. > > True. I have also heard "roman" used to mean the opposite of italic. Perhaps a direct traduction from the French "romain" which means just that. (In French, sans serif is normally named "antique", while serif have a number of names, one of which being "romain", particularly in "Le Romain du Roy", name of the type designed during the XVIIth c. for the king). Antoine
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Surrogat... Tex Texin
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... J%ORG KNAPPEN
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... DougEwell2
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Antoine Leca
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Antoine Leca
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Peter_Constable
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Peter_Constable
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... John Cowan
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Roozbeh Pournader
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... DougEwell2
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... DougEwell2
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Peter_Constable
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Tex Texin
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Sur... Michael Everson

