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

[Larry Kollar]

Thank you, Peter and Keith, for saying what I was about to say,
and saying it far better (not to mention “bringing receipts” as the
cool kids put it).

Everyone I know in the tech writing world uses “point size,”
including myself. Sure, when one thinks about it, it’s like saying
“inch length.” But idioms have a way of burrowing into language
and setting deep hooks.

— Larry

> Keith Marshall <keith.d.marshall@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 
> On 19/04/2021 09:47, Peter Schaffter wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021, Bjarni Ingi Gislason wrote:
>>>  Bug #60403 (closed) unified the writing of "point-size" to "point
>>> size".
>>> 
>>>  The problem is,
>>> that this coinage does not make sense.
>>> 
>>>  The "point" in this compound,
>>> is a name of a unit of measurement,
>>> is thus a constant,
>>> but its definition
>>> (size, numerical value)
>>> depends of the used measurement system
>>> (system of units).
>>> 
>>>  The right term is "type size",
>>> which is usually measured (stated) in "typographic points".
>> 
>> 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
> 
>> The groff manual is not a place for grinding semantic axes.  Use of
>> the near-universal 'point size' is preferable.
> 
> Quite so.  In fact, such axe grinding would appear to be nothing short
> of nonsensical pedantic bickering.