- From: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 13:59:57 -0700
- To: "John Ky (HxG)" <z2206460@student.unsw.edu.au>, "STYLE" <www-style@w3.org>, "Todd Fahrner" <fahrner@pobox.com>
"You must be confusing em with pica" No. I have (inherited from my uncle Hugh Williamson, who wrote one of the definitive books on typography), a ruler called an 'em' ruler. An em in typesetting became standardized at 6 to an inch, although as you pointed out originally it was the width of the square letter 'm'. It doesnt really matter though because we all agree what it means in CSS<g> Frank -----Original Message----- From: Todd Fahrner <fahrner@pobox.com> To: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com>; John Ky (HxG) <z2206460@student.unsw.edu.au>; STYLE <www-style@w3.org> Date: Monday, April 06, 1998 9:32 AM Subject: Re: Units of measurements >Thus spake Frank Boumphrey: > >> em takes on a different meaning in CSS to the usual typographic >>term. In Typography, 6em's=1 inch, > >You must be confusing em with pica. A pica is 12 points. There are six of >them in an inch. Only in a 12-point font is a pica equivalent to an em. As >for em as a "usual typographic term", there's no end of debate on the >connection to the letter em. Jan Roland Eriksson has produced a nearly >exhaustive treatment here: >http://home2.swipnet.se/%7Ew-20547/stylework/typograph1-en.html#Ch23 ... >yet he disputes any historical connection to the letter M. I've heard >otherwise, and will recycle a little ascii art from usenet: > >It's my understanding that there is a relationship to the letter M, or >rather, to the chunk of metal[1] upon which the raised face of the letter >once typically sat: > _________________ > | |\ /| || |\ > | | \ / | || . | \ > | | \/ | || | | | > | | | || | | | ---> "iM" > | || | | > ----------------- | > \ \\ \| > \ \\ \ > ------------ --- > >Unlike most of the letters, which sat on narrower chunks of metal, the M's >was square, at least for the most common designs of the letter M at an >early point in printing history[2] (this was somewhat wider than current >fashion has it). Thus the M's width served as a handy horizontal unit >equivalent to the height of all the characters' chunks; i.e., for the >nominal font size. "Em" came to mean, metonymically, this latter thing, >even after the letter M began to be designed more narrowly.[3] > > >[1] http://www.tiro.com/lead.gif >[2] http://www.tiro.com/aen_rom.html >[3] http://www.tiro.com/pla_rom.html > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Ky (HxG) <z2206460@student.unsw.edu.au> > >> Also, the ex unit turned out to be slightly less than the >>width of the 'x' character. > >As Frank noted, ex is universally misimplemented - as .5em. Last time I >checked, NS also gave too large a value for em; i.e., representing 1 em as >something more like 1.1em. > >__________________ >Todd Fahrner >mailto:fahrner@pobox.com >http://www.verso.com/agitprop/ > > >
Received on Monday, 6 April 1998 13:56:30 UTC