W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 1997

Re: font sizes in ems

From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 18:52:01 -0700
Message-Id: <199707190155.SAA27926@iceland.it.earthlink.net>
To: <www-style@w3.org>, "Todd Fahrner" <fahrner@pobox.com>
Todd Fahrner wrote:
> Yet another reason why I script IE3 out of the CSS loop:
> http://pdf.verso.com/css-ems/MacIE3.GIF

That actually looks better than it does in the W95 IE3.02. Ems are not
supported in this semi-implementation.
 
> Do you intend the anomalous inter-paragraph spacing?
> http://pdf.verso.com/css-ems/MacNS4.GIF

Yes, but I since removed it. As you have noted, NSN4.01 is out-of-spec
with regards to vertical margins. Had I not given paragraphs some
margin, the paragraphs would have been closer together than the line
spacing, because I have text-height spec'd at 1.1ems. Netscape is
discarding the CSS1-prescribed 'half-leading' at the top and bottom of
paragraphs. Although there are arguments for doing so, that is not what
the spec calls for -- the 'line box' is not part of the margin and does
not collapse. To compensate for NS's failure, a .1em vertical margin is
required. I initially put a .3em margin to highlight the fact that a
margin was there. I since changed it to .1em, so it now appears as it
_should_ appear with vertical margins set to zero.

I also added a link to a screen dump from an NT running a 640 x 480
display and neither of the specified fonts installed. The page was
perfectly legible at this resolution, with much the same look as on the
high-res display.

It looks like the page was quite readable on your 72ppi Mac, too, and,
again, with much the same look as on W95 at 114ppi. I suspect that the
equivalent point size on your Mac is considerably different than that
on either of the Win machines.

David Perrell
Received on Friday, 18 July 1997 22:33:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:50 GMT