W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2006

RE: Some words about the terms "relative" and "absolute".

From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 11:59:02 -0700
To: Marco Bertoni <mbertoni@webaccessibile.org>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EC00246575819245B066C20F77051F2905BF8A94AC@df-whippet-msg.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
Yes, I agree, we should talk about functions rather than units.  The units would live in a technique, or even in multiple techniques that target different user agent functionality.

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Marco Bertoni
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:14 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Some words about the terms "relative" and "absolute".


Hi Cynthia, as I've told in my original post there are other CSS units that are scalable (also in IE6/WIN):

1) for fonts: em, percentages and absolute-keywords (e.g. medium, small, x-small etc.)

2) for containers: percentages and em.

But we must think at the future when IE/WIN will be able to make pixels scalable (as all the other browsers already do). So we should talk about functions rather than units and I agree that "scalable" is the right term to use.

Marco

Cynthia Shelly ha scritto:
> The term I like to use when describing this feature is "scalable", and
> then I go on to say that for CSS that means em and % for fonts, and em
> for containers.
>
> People seem to get this.  Any font experts on the list know if this is
> the correct technical term?
>




Received on Thursday, 1 June 2006 18:59:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:46 GMT