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

SV: Why "color"

From: Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:40:38 +0100
To: "'marbux'" <marbux@gmail.com>, "'Philip TAYLOR'" <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org>
Cc: "'Ambrose Li'" <ambrose.li@gmail.com>, "'Aryeh Gregor'" <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, "'Max Harmony'" <maxh@sdf.lonestar.org>, <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000f01c992d2$53d7d150$0700a8c0@FWPixmill2>
Guys, stop this worm on 'color' which is actually pestering my mailbox.

I'm reading from the real book "Cascading Style Sheets", 'DESIGNING FOR THE WEB' by Håkon Wium Lie and Bert Bos. The book I have is originally published in 1997 but I have the second edition from 1999 (with a handwritten dedication from Håkon actually :) ).

ISBN 0-201-59625-3

My guess is that this book is not very common on bookshelves of people who are ventilating a lot of their own "brilliantly newfound" idéas about what CSS is and is not.

Chapter 11. COLORS - roams it self from page 224 to 244

It has been spellt COLOR for over 10 years; give it up and concentrate your energy on something that could be experienced as really useful.

> ----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: www-style-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] För marbux
> Skickat: den 19 februari 2009 16:53
> Till: Philip TAYLOR
> Kopia: Ambrose Li; Aryeh Gregor; Max Harmony; www-style@w3.org
> Ämne: Re: Why "color"
> 
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Philip TAYLOR
> <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org> wrote:
> >  And no, I'm not going to ask for
> > "fount" as a synonym for "font", so you needn't
> > think that this is just the thin end of the wedge :-)
> 
> Thanks. There's been enough violence done already to the historical
> meaning of "font." In the computer era, it's acquired the meaning of
> "type face." But it was actually a unit of measurement, a useful
> *quantity* of different characters, sorts, etc. of a given type face.
> So one shop might order 50 fonts of the same typeface because they
> needed more than 1 font to set type for, e.g., a book. Many shops I
> worked in had more than a single font of a given type face that saw
> heavy usage.
> 
> When I was a International Typographical Union apprentice back in the
> early 60s, the first time I referred to a type face as a "font" in
> conversation, I got a royal shellacking from a journeyman and an
> instruction to look up the word in Webster's Unabridged.
> 
> It was a memorable event, never forgotten. I still cringe every time I
> see someone referring to a type face as a "font." Unfortunately, it
> happens a lot. The word has acquired a new and quite different meaning
> and I don't think there's any going back.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Paul
> 
> -- 
> Universal Interoperability Council
> <http:www.universal-interop-council.org>
> 
Received on Friday, 20 February 2009 15:01:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:16 GMT