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

RE: Units Re: Relative Font Size

From: Lauke PH <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:24:26 +0100
Message-ID: <3A1D23A330416E4FADC5B6C08CC252B9440036@misnts6.mis.salford.ac.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Cc: "Scarlett Julian \(ED\)" <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scarlett Julian (ED) [mailto:Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk]
> Sent: 19 June 2003 08:48
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Units Re: Relative Font Size

[...]

> One final thought, since font size is inherited, specifying 
> it in the rules for body should get round any potential 
> problems shouldn't it? Has anyone come across css bugs where 
> a UA suddenly decides that a font with a % size should be set 
> relative to something other than it's parent container?

Julian,

the main problem are older browsers (NN4.x for instance) which
do some funky stuff with the CSS' inheritance. In particular
their handling of tables caused much grief for early CSS adopters,
and that's where the practice of "overloading" the CSS started.
This now obviously causes inheritance problems, as the font
sizes in browsers which do honour inheritance is compounded.

e.g.
html, body, table, td, caption { font-size: 0.95em; }

Have a read through
http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2002/table-inherit/
for instance.

Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2003 04:25:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:10 GMT