Talk:Small caps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hand-lettered tombstones and coin designs are not typography, so I'm puzzled how one can say: "The text of a formal monumental inscription or the legend on a coin are often rendered in small caps" if there's no context in which these capitals can be declared small. They are simply "all caps". Hotlorp 14:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that there is enough tontext on a coin or tombstone. If the first letters in sentences and proper nouns are larger capitalas than the rest of the capitals then you have small caps. Jeltz talk 15:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

As the article mentions, small-caps fonts have a different aspect ratio from "normal" fonts' capital letters. Technically, anyone could call anything a "non-small-caps" font, and just claim that it was designed to look funny; but it makes more sense, typographically speaking, IMHO, to call any font that looks like small caps a small-caps font. For example, on the Lincoln penny, the phrases "IN GOD WE TRUST" and "E PLURIBUS UNUM" are set in small caps; the phrase "ONE CENT" is definitely not. ("Liberty" and "United States of America" seem to me like they could go either way.) --Quuxplusone 06:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 small cap font 2 Image 3 From the German 4 Authentic (digital) small caps 5 All caps is not small caps

[edit] small cap font

On my system, the following sentence is not shown with small capitals:

An elementary example is Don QUIXOTE de La Mancha. Similarly, they are used for those languages in which the surname comes first, such as the romanization MAO Zedong.

Isn't it bad to use <small> tags? For example:

An elementary example is Don QUIXOTE de La Mancha. Similarly, they are used for those languages in which the surname comes first, such as the romanization MAO Zedong.

That works fine. - TAKASUGI Shinji 03:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

An old version of this article had used <small>, but IMO the current version is better. It's correct, after all, and that's important in an encyclopedia. If you're not seeing small caps, then: (1) I think that's because you have an old browser; and (2) you should be seeing "Don QUIXOTE de La Mancha" (all caps, not small), which is a graceful degradation. I think the proportion of Wikipedia users who regularly use browsers that can display <small> but not <span style> is small enough that it's worth snubbing them in order to present a correct display to the users with up-to-date graphical browsers. (The Lynx users won't care either way.) --Quuxplusone 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to use

<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lord</span>

instead of

L<span style="font-variant:small-caps;text-transform:lowercase">ORD</span>

? It makes more sense that way. --Ampersand2006 ^{( & )} 18:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're not seeing small caps, then: (1) I think that's because you have an old browser; and (2) you should be seeing "Don QUIXOTE de La Mancha" (all caps, not small), which is a graceful degradation. --Quuxplusone 01:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC), quoting from Quuxplusone 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

User:Remember the dot asks: Why don't we remove the image and just write

An example of caps and small caps:

? (Firefox users will at this point be shielding their gaze from the ugliness of that font. See a screenshot here.)

The simple answer: That block of HTML doesn't tell anyone what small caps looks like. Instead, it tells people what their Web browser thinks small caps looks like. Which is a completely different kettle of fish. Also, of course, the HTML "example" will be blatantly lying to Lynx or pre-CSS Netscape users, who will not be seeing small caps at all. The benefits of using a real image are two in number: It is authoritative, and it is widely accessible. Browser-specific CSS tags do not have those advantages.

Hope this helps. --Quuxplusone 04:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer seems reasonable to me. By the way, the screenshot link seems to be broken. — DIV (128.250.204.118 07:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] From the German

From the German article, paraphrased:

In Anglo-Saxon typography the small capitals are roughly 10% larger than the minuscule.

OpenType has two features relating to small capitals: „Small Caps“ for the enlarged small capitals and „Petite Caps“ for the normal-size small capitals.

Presumably the "enlarged" and "normal-size" are written from the German point of view.
I suggest that this could be added. Also suggest that a Petite Caps article or section be added (even if only redirect?). — DIV (128.250.204.118 07:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)) {Amended 128.250.204.118 08:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)}

[edit] Authentic (digital) small caps

We read that most modern digital fonts do not have a small-caps case. The reader might be interested to read of exceptions. Well [cough] I for one would be interested to read of exceptions that are good and also [legally] either free or inexpensive. -- Hoary 23:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any that are notable for purposes of the encyclopedia article (although there may be such). We shouldn't be adding them in here as a practical aid for designers, since Wikipedia is not a directory or a guidebook. —Michael Z. 2007-07-14 15:27 Z

[edit] All caps is not small caps

The text of a formal monumental inscription or the legend on a coin are often rendered in small caps: "Sir Christopher Wren's tomb in St Paul's Cathedral reads, in Latin, simply SI MONUMENTUM REQUIRIS CIRCUMSPICE" (approximately meaning "If you are looking for his monument, look around" – referring to the cathedral itself, which he designed).

Here's a photo. An inscription in Roman square capitals is not in small capitals, even if it includes letters of various heights. Small caps are capitals which are the same size but of distinctive appearance from surrounding minuscule letters. As you can see by the last line which includes capital and small letters, these are plain capitals. —Michael Z. 2008-05-21 19:48 z