I get 'em from the Fonts menu, they're fonts, goddammit. The evolution of language. Stuff like this is why I hate the AIGA.

In the past, there were often more steps to a process. Now we can get a lot of things done more quickly and simply. The words used to describe old processes can evolve and take on new meanings. To me, fonts and typefaces are one in the same anymore

Lol, this is hardly the evolution of language. There's no need to generate a neologism to describe them... they already have one: typeface. "Font" has been defined as meaning one thing, "typeface" another. People do mix them up easily, and though I don't call people out on it (because that would be pretty rude,) it does say to me that the person using the term doesn't know what they're talking about. You have an excuse if you're not in the industry. But when you are in the industry (or even trying to sound like a professional in any situation,) use the correct term, damnit.

I'm just glad that the makers of CSS didn't know this information. I'd be typing typeface-size and typeface-family all over the place. although leading would be a lot easier than line-height.

It is useful to hang on to history in cases where a lot of time and effort has gone into making jargon clear, instead of reinventing the wheel just because lay people who are crossing over are ignorant of or too lazy to do research or consult to make it right. When I see "leading" I never know what to expect, sometimes they mean leading, sometimes linespace, sometimes autoleading.
Fonts and Typefaces are not anymore the same thing than a car is a photo of a car.