- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:58:04 -0800
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>, www-style@w3.org
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 UTC