- From: Ambrose Li <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:53:49 -0500
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "Brad Kemper" <brkemper@comcast.net>, "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
On 27/01/2008, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > > Brad Kemper wrote: > > Oxfords defines a dot as "a small round mark or spot". So, it would seem > > that "round" is a key aspect of what makes something a dot. Yet in my > > tests, both Safari and Opera had square dots. Can clarification be added > > to the spec, to the effect of "dots should be round, when the width of > > the border is large enough to distinguish round from square (more than > > 3px thick, for instance)"? > > Ok, I've clarified the editor's draft by adding "round" in front of "dots" > and "square-ended" in front of "dashes". FWIW, though, I would say that there is typographical (as well as mathematical, though that would be OT) precedent for non-round dots, and iirc the draft for emphasis marks in CSS also specifies non-round dots. So the Oxford Dictionary is, unfortunately, wrong on this one. (Depending on which Oxford is being talked about, this may or may not be surprising.) -- cheers, -ambrose Yahoo and Gmail must die. Yes, I use them, but they still must die. PS: Don't trust everything you read in Wikipedia. (Very Important)
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 05:53:57 UTC