W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Dots vs. dashes

From: Ambrose Li <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:53:49 -0500
Message-ID: <af2cae770801272153l595b0830t148b4066bee47568@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "Brad Kemper" <brkemper@comcast.net>, "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>

On 27/01/2008, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> Brad Kemper wrote:
> > Oxfords defines a dot as "a small round mark or spot". So, it would seem
> > that "round" is a key aspect of what makes something a dot. Yet in my
> > tests, both Safari and Opera had square dots. Can clarification be added
> > to the spec, to the effect of "dots should be round, when the width of
> > the border is large enough to distinguish round from square (more than
> > 3px thick, for instance)"?
> Ok, I've clarified the editor's draft by adding "round" in front of "dots"
> and "square-ended" in front of "dashes".

FWIW, though, I would say that there is typographical (as well as
mathematical, though that would be OT) precedent for non-round
dots, and iirc the draft for emphasis marks in CSS also specifies
non-round dots. So the Oxford Dictionary is, unfortunately, wrong
on this one.

(Depending on which Oxford is being talked about, this may or
may not be surprising.)

Yahoo and Gmail must die. Yes, I use them, but they still must die.
PS: Don't trust everything you read in Wikipedia. (Very Important)
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 05:53:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:00 GMT