W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 1999

Re: When font-size and font size collide

From: Braden N. McDaniel <braden@shadow.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 22:24:37 -0400
Message-ID: <00e001bee921$bc8fb600$01000080@bonezero>
To: "Daniel Glazman" <Daniel.Glazman@der.edf.fr>, "Tantek Celik" <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>, <www-style@w3.org>
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Glazman <Daniel.Glazman@der.edf.fr>
To: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Cc: L. David Baron <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>; <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: When font-size and font size collide

> Tantek Celik a écrit :
> >
> > > However, I *think* <font size="+2"> is often treated as relative to
> > > base font size of the document, not the font size of the parent
> > > element.
> >
> > It is.  FONT SIZE=+/- is pretty bizarre and completely unrepresentable
> > CSS.
> Right.

But when BASEFONT assumes the default value (3), there should be no
difference between using signed and unsigned values, correct?

> Next problem : FONT SIZE=+3 cannot be easily deprecated because it is
> not possible in CSS to declare that the font size of an element should
> be increased or decreased by more than one arbitrary unit... The %
> values do not easily solve the problem.
> I'd really love to make these FONT elements disappear from all my
> documents but it is a very dirty job w/o such a feature.

Since CSS has no notion corresponding to BASEFONT (fortunately!), I would
think that

  font-size: xx-large;

should do the job (assuming you're using "normal" for the default text
size--and there are few good reasons not to do that). If you want a
*particular* relationship between sizes, ems or percentage are appropriate.

Braden N. McDaniel
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 1999 22:31:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:51 UTC