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

Re: stability of root em unit spec

From: Simetrical <simetrical@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 08:14:15 -0500
Message-ID: <7c2a12e20901070514q57669720y3f313fab64d46e86@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Håkon Wium Lie" <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: "Keith Rarick" <kr@xph.us>, www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote:
> I will propose to change "rem" to "re" because:
>
>  - all other length units are two-letter, it seems logical to follow
>    this scheme unless there's a good reason not to
>
>  - "rem" reminds me of the the old basic "remark" command. This is
>    not a very good reason, just something that pops up in my head
>    whenever I see it. I'm sure "re" will remind some people of email
>    messages.
>
> What do people think -- should it be changed back?

"rem" seems much clearer to me.  It makes it relatively obvious
(although of course not totally) that it's related to "em", which it
is.  "re" and "rm" seem more opaque, and possibly harder to pronunce.
I don't think it's necessary to keep length units two-letter -- plenty
of non-length units aren't two-letter, and the typing speed difference
between two letters and three seems negligible.

And of course, *any* abbreviation will remind different people of
different, conflicting things.  For me, "rem" is less confusing in
this respect than "re" or "rm".
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 13:14:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:15 GMT