W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 1996

Re: font sizes...

From: Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 09:05:15 -0700
Message-Id: <v03007802ae1aa577f791@[205.149.180.135]>
To: www-style@w3.org
Of course, relative numbers were broken from the beginning. These things
*should* have been called "font index" or something like that, since
"font size" (in real life) has always referred to absolute sizes,
generally expressed in points.

At 3:49p +0200 07/23/96, Bert Bos wrote:

>The CSS1 spec gives four ways to set the font size:
>
>1. Corresponding to Netscape's numbering scheme is the set of 7
>keywords: xx-small, x-small, small, medium, large, x-large and
>xx-large.

Strange... I never thought of a 12pt font as "small", especially in the
context of Netscape's "normal" font size. One would think that "normal"
would correspond to "medium" rather than "small". ::shrug::

> > As for MSIE's implementation, could you live with
> > font-size: +1pt 	for relative to point size and
>
>Problem with this is that it +1pt indistinguishable from 1pt, unless
>the +-sign is given a special role.

Actually, the real problem with that would be it means "10pt +1pt ==> 11pt"
rather than ==>15pt. Maybe "+1ix", where "ix" stands for index?

>To help with this confusion, we are in the process of adding two
>keywords: bigger (equiv. to 1) and smaller (equiv. to -1). Points 1

                            ^^ +1 you mean? :)

>and 2 above could than all be done with keywords.

Sounds logical to me. :)

__________________________________________________________________________
    Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com>     Programmer - Excel, AppleScript,
          Mountain View, CA                         ProTERM, FoxPro, HTML
 http://www.natural-innovations.com/     Musician - Guitarist, Songwriter
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 1996 12:55:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:44 GMT