Pixel to Em conversion...

[Bernhard Sturm]

I wonder if you realize how ridiculous it is to cite over 30 years old
technical descriptions that use sloppy terminology. Besides, the
"Extended ASCII" described in that document has nothing to do with the
"Extended ASCII" in other documents cited so far. The more you cite
mutually incompatible uses of "Extended ASCII", the more you give
arguments in favor of my point - but you can stop now, since the point
is crystal clear to anyone who has actually checked some reliable sources.

Indeed Jukka, I stop here and rather marvel at the mysteries of the
universe.

have a nice day
bernhard

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Ben C:

We're talking about the meaning of two semi-technical terms:
"em" and "extended ASCII".

No, "em" is a technical term in typography (and CSS), and "ASCII" is a
technical term in computing (and there is no such thing as "extended
ASCII").

Words mean what people use them to mean

Using technical terms in wrong meanings is simply wrong. No amount of
language philosophy changes this.

if documents are found on the web including the Wikipedia that use
terms in a particular way then that is factual evidence about how
they're being used.

And if we can find 2+2 = 7, then there is evidence that this expression is
really used. It is still an incorrect statement.

But Bernhard Sturm, who
is a typographer and also a reliable source, has suggested that the
"em" is a unit of width after all.

He claims to be a typographer. If he still wants to claim that "em" is a
unit of width, then I won't trust him on any matter.

So there are facts on both sides.

No, an incorrect statement does not become a fact just because it is written
by someone who purports to be an expert. If a mathematician writes 2+2 = 7,
it's still not a fact.