W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: pt vs px for font sizes.

From: Timothy J. Luoma <lists@tntluoma.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:54:22 -0400
Message-ID: <3D7DF98E.3060608@tntluoma.com>
To: "'W3C-WAI-IG List'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Steve Vosloo wrote:
> EM or % is the way to go.

They are preferable alternatives to PX or PT, yes

> A warning though -- I had a weird situation where I used both of these
> and when I applied it to text in a nested table the value doubled.
> Example, some text that was set to 80% of normal size (through CSS)
> suddenly became half as small when inside the nested table.
> But perhaps it was just me!

Nope, that's the danger when EM or % get nested.

That's why I have gone to using "font size keywords" which are 
alternately called "absolute" by the W3.org and "relative" by others.

They are "absolute" in that when you nest a "x-small" inside an "small" 
you get the same "x-small" as you would have gotten no matter what it 
was nested inside.

They are "relative" in that their sizes relate to one another and are 



30 Days to becoming an Opera Lover
Day 12: Bookmark 'em, Danno
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 09:54:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:20 UTC