W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2009

Re: [css-fonts] "Irregardless"? REALLY?

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:58:04 -0800
Cc: "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>, www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <49AD8F88-8CFF-4BBA-96C1-E416A620B3B9@apple.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>

On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:42 , Brad Kemper wrote:

> 
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:01 AM, Eric A. Meyer wrote:
> 
>>  So just last night, I was reading up on 'font-size'adjust' (3.7) and stumbled into the following bit of prose:
>> 
>>  "It does this by adjusting the font-size so that the x-height
>>   is the same irregardless of the font used."
>> 
>>  Horrified, I searched the document and discovered it AGAIN in the description of 'unicode-range' (4.5):
>> 
>>  "Code points outside of the defined unicode-range are ignored,
>>   irregardless of whether the font contains a glyph for that
>>   code point or not."
>> 
>> I believe both instances should be changed to "regardless", because that's an actual word.  "irrespective" would also be an acceptable substitute, though in my opinion just barely.  See <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irregardless> for more information, if that's really necessary.
>>  Also, never tell me who did this, because if I find out I'll be honor-bound to follow through on my public statement and slap them like a haddock.  (Yes, "like", not "with".)
>> 
>> -- 
> 
> Enough people use "irrespective" to make it an actual word.

Heh, dictionaries do too.  Wait, it is a word in common and 'approved' usage.  'irregardless' is not.


David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 18:58:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:22 GMT