At 2021-04-19T11:21:41+0100, Keith Marshall wrote: > > On 19/04/2021 09:47, Peter Schaffter wrote: > >> 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
Oi, what about Macquarie's? After some hard yakka this arvo I picked up Jezza and Shazza in my ute and popped round to the servo for some durries and a box of goon. My bogan mates didn't forget their thongs, so they were more fun than a dezza in a doona. Sweet as! > >> The groff manual is not a place for grinding semantic axes. I'd say it is if the pedagogical benefit is worth the cost. This requires terms to be clearly introduced and then used with discipline. > >> Use of the near-universal 'point size' is preferable. Yeah, I see Bjarni's point but this seems like a case where the existing usage is both widespread and (importantly) not misleading. We have a much harder time with words like "transparent" in our manual. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
