Thank you, Peter and Keith, for saying what I was about to say, and saying it far better (not to mention “bringing receipts” as the cool kids put it).
Everyone I know in the tech writing world uses “point size,” including myself. Sure, when one thinks about it, it’s like saying “inch length.” But idioms have a way of burrowing into language and setting deep hooks. — Larry > Keith Marshall <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 19/04/2021 09:47, Peter Schaffter wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021, Bjarni Ingi Gislason wrote: >>> Bug #60403 (closed) unified the writing of "point-size" to "point >>> size". >>> >>> The problem is, >>> that this coinage does not make sense. >>> >>> The "point" in this compound, >>> is a name of a unit of measurement, >>> is thus a constant, >>> but its definition >>> (size, numerical value) >>> depends of the used measurement system >>> (system of units). >>> >>> The right term is "type size", >>> which is usually measured (stated) in "typographic points". >> >> And then there's the real world, where 'point size' is used >> by every (English speaking) typesetter, graphic designer, and >> proofreader I've ever worked with. Like it or not, 'point size' >> became synonymous with 'type size' a very long time ago. > > Indeed, it is even formally defined as such, by no lesser authority than > the Oxford English Dictionary, (which, AFAIK, is *the* authoritative > language reference throughout the English speaking world, beyond the > sphere of influence of the USA): > > https://www.lexico.com/definition/point_size > >> The groff manual is not a place for grinding semantic axes. Use of >> the near-universal 'point size' is preferable. > > Quite so. In fact, such axe grinding would appear to be nothing short > of nonsensical pedantic bickering.
