From: Jukka K. Korpela on
Hans-Georg Michna wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:31:27 +0200, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
>> Setting font size to a px value is alarming (and a bad idea)
>
> Why is that?

This is explained fairly often in this group.

> px is the only measure which (counter-intuitively),
> at least according to the standard, adjusts for actual physical
> resolution, while all other measures are absolute.

The "standard" is obscure and does not really define when px values should
be scaled, and people normally use px because they think there is no
scaling.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: Andreas Prilop on
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> if you suggest Arial and Geneva as alternatives,
> what makes you think Arial should be favored when both are available?

Arial is a typeface consisting of four fonts, whereas Geneva is
just a single font. It makes no sense at all to specify Geneva
on the web.

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://www.alanflavell.org.uk/charset/
From: Jukka K. Korpela on
Andreas Prilop wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
>> if you suggest Arial and Geneva as alternatives,
>> what makes you think Arial should be favored when both are available?
>
> Arial is a typeface consisting of four fonts, whereas Geneva is
> just a single font.

People seem to refer to Geneva italic, Geneva bold, and even Geneva bold
italic. Maybe they are referring to "pirate" copies, or maybe they are
referring to algorithmically bolded or slanted Geneva. The page
http://www.adobe.com/products/postscript/pdfs/ps3fonts.pdf
mentions just "Geneva", whereas for other fonts, sorry, typefaces, italic
and bold versions are separately listed. So apparently you are right, as
usual. On the other hand...

> It makes no sense at all to specify Geneva on the web.

If your document does not use italics or bolding for some textual content,
the lack of italic and bold fonts doesn't sound like a convincing argument
against using Geneva for it.

What I was pointing at was the order: if you have some reason for mentioning
Geneva at all, why make it second to Arial? Systems that lack Arial are
rare, and I see little reason to guess that on such systems, Geneva would be
an improvement over the system's default sans-serif font, so why not write
just
font-family: Arial, sans-serif
?

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: dorayme on
In article <j3Rnn.16544$pL1.5547(a)uutiset.elisa.fi>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela(a)cs.tut.fi> wrote:

> > It makes no sense at all to specify Geneva on the web.
>
> If your document does not use italics or bolding for some textual content,
> the lack of italic and bold fonts doesn't sound like a convincing argument
> against using Geneva for it.

It is frustrating to use Geneva when bold is wanted in my word
processing apps (Geneva makes no bold available in the typeface
package). In fact it simply mostly does not work at all.

But if Geneva is specified in the CSS for an HTML doc, it looks
fine to me on Mac, even with a great chunk of <b>text...</b>
Perhaps you and Andreas are connoisseurs or perhaps even I would
be aghast if I saw it on other than (my?) Macintosh computers and
browsers.

--
dorayme
From: Andreas Prilop on
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, dorayme wrote:

> It is frustrating to use Geneva when bold is wanted in my word
> processing apps (Geneva makes no bold available in the typeface
> package). In fact it simply mostly does not work at all.

See? There is no "Geneva Bold".

> But if Geneva is specified in the CSS for an HTML doc, it looks
> fine to me on Mac, even with a great chunk of <b>text...</b>

Sadly, most people today cannot tell real italics and boldface
from slanted and bolded fonts.

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://www.alanflavell.org.uk/charset/