W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: Relative font sizes

From: James Craig <work@cookiecrook.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:41:49 -0500
Message-ID: <3E9C6E8D.6040107@cookiecrook.com>
To: Byrne Jim <J.Byrne@gcal.ac.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

Byrne Jim wrote:
>It's a good idea not set any size in the body selector - leave that to the
>users default size - and then set your relative sizes for headers,
>paragraphs and so on.

I disagree. This is where almost all the cross-browser and 
cross-platform font display differences arise. Now I am not saying you 
should set the body font to a pixel size, but what's wrong with a 
scalable font size for the body?

If you set it with a keyword for example (xx-small though xx-large), you 
give those child elements a baseline. Keyword sizes are still scalable 
in all browsers that I know of, and therefore will be relative to the 
users default size.

Without that baseline, the "relative sizes" have no consistency across 
browsers. The CSS hacks outlined in the links I posted are a way to get 
font-sizes on the same system consistent. IE5 and Mozilla/NS7 for 
example, do font-sizes differently. IE6 does font-sizes differently 
based on the DTD existance and position (rendering mode). And that's 
just teh Windows platform.

James Craig
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 16:42:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:09 GMT