RE: [css-fonts] "Irregardless"? REALLY?

To quote an even more reputable source than WordNet I turned to Merriam-Webster to see what they have to say:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
 
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
 
Certainly, if usage of other words are recommended or preferred, slang or colloquial words should be avoided when a more proper and universally acceptable word can be used.

________________________________

From: www-style-request@w3.org on behalf of Eric A. Meyer
Sent: Wed 2009-12-02 12:47 PM
To: www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css-fonts] "Irregardless"? REALLY?



At 11:20 AM -0800 12/2/09, Brad Kemper wrote:

>Sorry, I apparently mispoke. I meant to say, 'Enough people use
>"irregardless" to make it an actual word.' And yes, dictionaries do
>so too. For instance, WordNet (quoted below) and my spell-check both
>recognize it as a word.

    Enough people use "ain't" to make it an actual word that shows up
in dictionaries too, but I wouldn't expect to see it in a W3C
specification.  Because, exactly as with "irregardless", it's
generally marked as incorrect, erroneous, or at best informal slang.

--
Eric A. Meyer (eric@meyerweb.com)     http://meyerweb.com/