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

Re: stability of root em unit spec

From: Christof Hoeke <csad7@t-online.de>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:46:33 +0100
Message-ID: <4964A429.8030202@t-online.de>
CC: "Ph. Wittenbergh" <jk7r-obt@asahi-net.or.jp>, HÃ¥kon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Keith Rarick <kr@xph.us>, www-style@w3.org

Adam Twardoch wrote:
>>>  - all other length units are two-letter, it seems logical to follow
>>>    this scheme unless there's a good reason not to
> If we go this path, I'd say calling it "rm" rather than "re" would make
> more sense. After all, in digital typography, "units per em" are
> abbreviated "upm" (not upe), and "pixels per em" are abbreviated "ppm"
> (not ppe).

Personnally I find sticking to two-letter units if possible quite 

And I find "rm" rather nice, as "re" not reminds of emails but also of 
rEGULAR eXPRESSION (and on a maybe silly note "rem" not only to the 
shell command but also of rAPID eYE mOVEMENT which may some day be a 
useful unit ;) One could argue that "rm" would also be a shell command 
but still quicker to type than "rem"

just my 2 cents...

Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 12:47:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:23 UTC