Re: "point size" is not usable as a term

[G. Branden Robinson]

At 2021-04-19T11:21:41+0100, Keith Marshall wrote:
> > On 19/04/2021 09:47, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> >> And then there's the real world, where 'point size' is used
> >> by every (English speaking) typesetter, graphic designer, and
> >> proofreader I've ever worked with.  Like it or not, 'point size'
> >> became synonymous with 'type size' a very long time ago.
> > 
> > Indeed, it is even formally defined as such, by no lesser authority
> > than the Oxford English Dictionary, (which, AFAIK, is *the*
> > authoritative language reference throughout the English speaking
> > world, beyond the sphere of influence of the USA):
> > 
> >     https://www.lexico.com/definition/point_size

Oi, what about Macquarie's?  After some hard yakka this arvo I picked
up Jezza and Shazza in my ute and popped round to the servo for some
durries and a box of goon.  My bogan mates didn't forget their thongs,
so they were more fun than a dezza in a doona.  Sweet as!

> >> The groff manual is not a place for grinding semantic axes.

I'd say it is if the pedagogical benefit is worth the cost.  This
requires terms to be clearly introduced and then used with discipline.

> >> Use of the near-universal 'point size' is preferable.

Yeah, I see Bjarni's point but this seems like a case where the existing
usage is both widespread and (importantly) not misleading.

We have a much harder time with words like "transparent" in our manual.

Regards,
Branden

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature