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

Re: the *precise* definition of 1em

From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 00:35:32 -0700
Message-Id: <199707200745.AAA01859@sweden.it.earthlink.net>
To: "Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Joel N. Weber II wrote:
> My point is that when your approximation of the size for one is 12
> points, and the approximation of the size for the average is 10
points,
> then when you specify 1em, the child element will now have an
approximated
> size of 10 points, and so the closest match for font one will now be
> nine points, where the parent size of one was 12 points.

Ah. I see. You are revising the first choice to produce a more
consistently sized set. That seems like the right thing to do. Child
elements are likely to look better when smaller than the parent, not
larger.
 
> Hmm... if you're trying to make something as tall as the text, it
would
> need to take the size of the largest font, I think.

That too makes sense. 
 
> I don't think X11 can scale bitmap fonts.  You can have scalable
fonts,
> but some fonts can't be scaled.

I believe scalable bitmap fonts are supported in X11R5, and SPEEDO
(Bitstream?) vector fonts. And what about FontTastic? Hey, why not
write your own font server?

David Perrell
Received on Sunday, 20 July 1997 03:45:40 GMT

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