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.)
-- 
cheers,
-ambrose

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