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 
resizable.

TjL

ref:
http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_26_using_relative_font_sizes.html

-- 
30 Days to becoming an Opera Lover
                                  http://www.tntluoma.com/opera/lover/
Day 12: Bookmark 'em, Danno
                http://tntluoma.com/opera/lover/day12-bookmarkemdanno/
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 09:54:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:06 GMT