Selector for content?
in [CSS]
|
Prev: Can I refer width value not to the parent container cascade but to the current top browser window?
Next: b or strong?
From: Jukka K. Korpela on 12 Feb 2010 00:47 Chris F.A. Johnson wrote: > There are many better-looking monospace fonts than > Courier, and yes, they are much preferable for most coding than any > proportional font. So would you mind listing, say, seven of them? I guess "many" normally means at least that much. Please list fonts that can reasonably be expected to be available on people's computers around the world, as we are discussing authoring for the World Wide Web. (We were not discussing coding but the presentation of computer code on web pages.) -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Ben C on 12 Feb 2010 03:28 On 2010-02-11, Dr J R Stockton <reply1006(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets message <rFCcn.1138$pL1.71 > 0(a)uutiset.elisa.fi>, Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:10:44, Jukka K. Korpela ><jkorpela(a)cs.tut.fi> posted: >> >>Monospace font reduces legibility considerably. Monospace fonts, in >>addition to being ugly, tend to be less legible than about any other >>font, not counting fantasy fonts. So when presenting program code on a >>web page, should we really sacrifice legibility just to have argument >>lists aligned in a particular way. > > In context, codswallop. > > Monospace reduces legibility in plain natural-language text[1], where > experienced readers recognise many words rapidly with help from their > outline and the context of the sentence. > > But that does not apply to typical computer languages, in which only a > few normal "words" are used and it is important to be able to see the > exact spelling of identifiers. Most words in a typical computer program that hasn't been deliberately obfuscated are still normal words.
From: Chris F.A. Johnson on 12 Feb 2010 04:41 On 2010-02-12, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > Chris F.A. Johnson wrote: > >> There are many better-looking monospace fonts than >> Courier, and yes, they are much preferable for most coding than any >> proportional font. > > So would you mind listing, say, seven of them? I guess "many" normally means > at least that much. > > Please list fonts that can reasonably be expected to be available on > people's computers around the world, as we are discussing authoring for the > World Wide Web. (We were not discussing coding but the presentation of > computer code on web pages.) I have no idea what fonts people might have; I use Lucida Sans Typewriter. I assume people who don't like Courier would select a different font on their systems. Haven't you done that? -- Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfajohnson.com> =================================================================== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
From: Gary Peek on 12 Feb 2010 08:22 Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > when it is apparent that the opinion is simply a fixed idea, > a belief once adopted and never considered critically So you think I haven't thought critically about this? Wrong. (From what I have been reading lately, a number of people have been thinking critically about it.) > Try Cambria. Try > Georgia. Try almost anything, and you'll see that you won't often find > anything worse than Courier. I tried Arial, and I even made a graphic image for the group to compare. But you won't answer my question about it. (Because answering it honestly will indicate that you favor a monospaced font for computer code.) Please do not tell me about Usenet. By the way, why are you arguing about the <code> tag in a stylesheet newsgroup? (Yes you are, check your previous posts.) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Jukka K. Korpela on 12 Feb 2010 10:03
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote: >> So would you mind listing, say, seven of them? I guess "many" >> normally means at least that much. >> >> Please list fonts that can reasonably be expected to be available on >> people's computers around the world, as we are discussing authoring >> for the World Wide Web. (We were not discussing coding but the >> presentation of computer code on web pages.) > > I have no idea what fonts people might have; I use Lucida Sans > Typewriter. Still six fonts missing, if we are liberal enough to assume that Lucida Sans Typewriter satisfies the conditions (though you didn't say in which sense it's better than Courier). Do I need to hold my breathe? -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ |