- From: Myles C. Maxfield via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 16:41:31 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The spec says: > <relative-size> > A <relative-size> keyword is interpreted relative to the table of font sizes and the computed ‘font-size’ of the parent element. Possible values are: > [ larger | smaller ] > > For example, if the parent element has a font size of ‘medium’, a value of ‘larger’ will make the font size of the current element be ‘large’. And, about absolute-size: > <absolute-size> > An <absolute-size> keyword refers to an entry in a table of font sizes computed and kept by the user agent. Possible values are: > [ xx-small | x-small | small | medium | large | x-large | xx-large ] According to the current spec text, it seems to me: - The relative sizes are only well-defined when an absolute size is inherited - In-between absolute sizes, relative-sizes are fuzzy (and therefore can be implemented using a simple ratio) - The UA has total control over the absolute sizes Therefore, it seems to me that, if UAs choose absolute sizes which are a simple ratio from each other, then using a simple ratio would be spec compliant. However, no browser that I tested does this. Because of web compatibility, I can't imagine that any browser could change their absolute sizes. Therefore, we should change the spec. Because of the existing fuzziness in the current spec, I don't think there is any value is specifying exactly which mechanism is used to increase/decrease the font size (for example, a UA could use a ratio, or a lookup table, or asking an oracle, etc.). The spec should simply say that "smaller" means smaller and "larger" means larger. -- GitHub Notification of comment by litherum Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1711#issuecomment-321607113 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 10 August 2017 16:41:36 UTC