W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: Guideline 3.4 comment (ralative vs. absolute units)

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:00:20 -0000
Message-ID: <00a901c181d9$b5b1cfa0$523c70c2@7020CT>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, <wai-wcag-editor@w3.org>
> I think the point is that relative units should be used for font sizes,
and I
> would argue that it is appropriate to use them for layout as well -
> especially for layout of text.

In general I agree, but I don't think it's that clear cut - I'm concerned
as to who the users are who require text to be scaled, but aren't
interested in having images scaled. Current UA's provide mechanisms for
scaling both together, and this works best today where the text has been
scaled to the image, which only the author can do, so for these users a
fixed font size is advantageous. *

>   If there was something wrong in using 'pt' or 'cm' in CSS
definitions - than
>   'pt' and 'cm' could be just excluded from CSS specifications. As they
are
>   present in CSS1/CSS2 - there is nothing wrong in using them.
>
> That logic doesn't hold up unless we claim to be perfect in all our
> specifications. For that matter, the order of the Cascade in CSS2 is
vvery
> different from that in CSS1 because we felt that in CSS1 it was wrong,
but we
> only make improvements after we know of the problem, and it is difficult
to
> update a Recommendation.

And pt or cm are entirely appropriate for CSS in a medium where the output
characteristics are known, such as print, or for your own personal
interests, we should remember CSS is not just for creating webpages.

Jim.

* I realise I use my browser differently from most, and actually maximise
what we've already got...
Received on Monday, 10 December 2001 19:20:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:17 GMT