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: Chris F.A. Johnson on 12 Feb 2010 18:37 On 2010-02-12, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > 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? No, you need to show a little sense and look at the monospace fonts you have available and select the best one as the default instead of being a sheep and going along with a default that you don't like. -- 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: Dr J R Stockton on 13 Feb 2010 12:28 In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets message <7tlaqiFr40U2(a)mid. individual.net>, Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:34:54, Harlan Messinger <hm.usenetr emoverthis(a)gavelcade.com> posted: >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. And we, who are Usenet posters, should have at least the 72/73 line, so that our coding in whatever language is suitable for posting if required. The editor I use mainly lacks that; I keep the window width set to give the indication. >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. Once upon a time, I had a file-viewing utility (WFView?) (Scandinavian?) which offered lateral compression of fonts. In comparison with Courier at 100%, Courier at 50-60% was nearly as legible when at the top of Z- order, and generally much more legible otherwise (being largely hidden). Compression/expansion should be standard in all font selectors. -- (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (RFCs 5536/7) Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (RFCs 5536/7)
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 14 Feb 2010 17:45 Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> The width of a space should be equal to the width of non-whitespace >> characters to see the white-space character and the number of >> white-space characters easily. > > You seem to have a fixed idea and can't get rid of it. Pot, kettle, black. > You can see that 6 spaces are twice as wide as 3 spaces, quite > independently of the relationship between the width of space and > width of other characters. And that is the problem with it. PointedEars
From: Michael Wojcik on 15 Feb 2010 12:19 Ben C wrote: > On 2010-02-11, Dr J R Stockton <reply1006(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> 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. For some values of "typical", and modulo programming language. I'll accept that we can consider, say, APL programs as not "typical" in the experience of most programmers (though APL had considerable currency in financial programming at one time). And similarly we can treat many esoteric languages as "deliberately obfuscated" by their very nature.[1] However, there are plenty of examples of source code for production software that is not chiefly composed of "normal words". Most assembly programs, for example. Or many millions of lines of COBOL source, which (ironically, given COBOL's origin as a language designed for readability) are chiefly composed of identifiers with names that are horrible agglutinations of obscure abbreviations. [1] Of course, some esoteric languages, such as ETA, make it easy to write programs that are mostly or entirely composed of "normal words" (in one or more natural languages). The resulting programs defy understanding, but they're easy to read. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
From: Ben C on 15 Feb 2010 16:54
On 2010-02-15, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > Ben C wrote: >> On 2010-02-11, Dr J R Stockton <reply1006(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> 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. > > For some values of "typical", and modulo programming language. > > I'll accept that we can consider, say, APL programs as not "typical" > in the experience of most programmers (though APL had considerable > currency in financial programming at one time). Yes. I'm not sure what the best font to specify in CSS for APL is. Better to use SVG instead. |