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

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

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:38:42 -0500 (EST)
To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
cc: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0112101931540.12306-100000@tux.w3.org>
dropped wcag-editor from the thread for the moment.

In fact I prefer to have my images also scaled based on my personal font
preferences, but again, the author doesn't know what they are.

example code for XHTML with a fallback for an image that is known not to
scale well:

  <object class="icon" data="mm_tool-svg" type="image/svg+xml">
    <object width="20" height="15" data="mm_tool-raster" type="image/png">
      A multimedia tool
    </object>
  </object>

combined with the CSS rule

  .icon { width: 2 em ; height 1.5 em }

Cheers

Charles

On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Jim Ley wrote:

  > 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.
Received on Monday, 10 December 2001 19:38:43 GMT

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