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 10:10 Gary Peek wrote: > 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.) Your image was about some pseudo-graphics used in comments, so it's hardly relevant. You can write text (in comments or otherwise) in a manner that breaks in non-monospace rendering, but it's foolish to use that as an argument here. > 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.) Why are you? I have no difficulty in seeing the connection between stylesheets and the use of fonts for computer code, which is what this discussion is about. The relevance of <code> is simply that it is by default rendered in monospace font, so CSS is called for to fix that. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Harlan Messinger on 12 Feb 2010 10:30 Dr J R Stockton wrote: > In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets message <i1fcn.720$pL1.593 > @uutiset.elisa.fi>, Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:17:50, Jukka K. Korpela > <jkorpela(a)cs.tut.fi> posted: >>> therefore it can be >>> seen at a glance when code reaches a certain column >> Why would that matter? Even if you're displaying FORTRAN IV, why would >> that matter (when presenting a source program)? >> > > You evidently write from inexperience. > > Fortran IV is column-sensitive. I have before me an unused 80-column > card, with "FORTRAN STATEMENT" printed on it. Executable code starts in > column 7, with labels in 1-5 and continuation characters in 6. Code > finishes after column 72, with 73-80 for program ID and/or sequencing. This is a very strong argument for rendering *Fortran IV* in a monospaced typeface! And Fortran 77 as well. (And let's not forget COBOL.) But for the same reason it is also best displayed with a faint vertical line running between columns 6 and 7, another between columns 72 and 73, and another to the right of column 80 so we can catch serious accidents.
From: Harlan Messinger on 12 Feb 2010 10:34 Harlan Messinger wrote: > Dr J R Stockton wrote: >> In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets message <i1fcn.720$pL1.593 >> @uutiset.elisa.fi>, Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:17:50, Jukka K. Korpela >> <jkorpela(a)cs.tut.fi> posted: >>>> therefore it can be >>>> seen at a glance when code reaches a certain column >>> Why would that matter? Even if you're displaying FORTRAN IV, why would >>> that matter (when presenting a source program)? >>> >> >> You evidently write from inexperience. >> >> Fortran IV is column-sensitive. I have before me an unused 80-column >> card, with "FORTRAN STATEMENT" printed on it. Executable code starts in >> column 7, with labels in 1-5 and continuation characters in 6. Code >> finishes after column 72, with 73-80 for program ID and/or sequencing. > > This is a very strong argument for rendering *Fortran IV* in a > monospaced typeface! And Fortran 77 as well. (And let's not forget > COBOL.) But for the same reason it is also best displayed with a faint > vertical line running between columns 6 and 7, another between columns > 72 and 73, and another to the right of column 80 so we can catch serious > accidents. For what it's worth (in case this hasn't been mentioned--I haven't read the whole thread) I often switch to proportional typefaces when printing code, especially when doing side-by-side visual comparisons of versions, because then more code fits within the width of the page, and I find I lose nothing by not using monospaced type.
From: Gary Peek on 12 Feb 2010 11:53 Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > Your image was about some pseudo-graphics used in comments, so it's > hardly relevant. Pseudo-graphics make the comments more useful, so they are appropriate. Well written code includes comments, so it is relevant. (I guess I should just be happy that you at least looked at the image.) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Ben C on 12 Feb 2010 16:55
On 2010-02-12, Gary Peek <mylastname(a)mycompanyname.com> wrote: > 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.) Why is it so hard to believe that a proportional font might be preferable for computer code? I would like to be able to use them myself, but the editor I like the most for other reasons doesn't support them (so fixed is the idea that computer code should be fixed-width). |