- From: Hakon Lie <Hakon.Lie@sophia.inria.fr>
- Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 14:06:08 +0100
- To: www-style@www10.w3.org
This is a summary of responses I got when searching for terminology: As a replacement for smallest | smaller | small | normal | large | larger | largest one person suggested > 1/ smallest and largest are not relative to anything (IMHO) > (but smaller and larger are relative). I think you could > use them, or rather "tinier" and "huger" > > 2/ "pico" and "jumbo" > > 3/ forge it from a foreign language (italian) : > "tinissimo" and "hugissimo" > > 4/ forge it from "milli" or "micro" and "mega" I like 3 & 4. kitblake@gig.nl suggested: > min | tiny | small | normal | large | huge | max > > (Curiously, the number of characters in each name follows a bell curve.) The last fact obviously makes it more attractive. However, since numerical values beyond "min" and "max" are allowed (I should ahve mintioned that) they are misnomers. Another person had these proposals: > tiny | small | medium-small | normal | medium-large | large | huge > or > tiny | extra-small | small | normal | large | extra-large | huge The last one is partly based on the clothing size metaphor. There we have an obvious shortcut: xxs | xs | s | m | l | xl | xxl Hmm.. Thanks for helping! -h&kon Hakon W Lie, W3C/INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis, France http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/People/howcome/
Received on Friday, 29 September 1995 09:06:23 UTC