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

Re: min-font-size

From: Ian Hickson <py8ieh@bath.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 01:39:13 +0100 (BST)
To: David Meadows <david@heroes.force9.co.uk>
cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.04.9907190131040.21030-100000@midge.bath.ac.uk>
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, David Meadows wrote:
> >
> > An example of how this could be used is:
> >
> >    * { font-size: 9px ! minimum; font-size: 200% ! maximum; }
> >
> > ...which would imply that no element can have text smaller than 9px, and
> > no element can have text bigger than twice its parents font-size.
> 
> Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but what happens when the parent's font size
> is 4px? I think this method would have a very complex set of interaction
> rules.

Yes, the rules would be complicated. (Note, though, that they would not be
any more complicated than the min-width and max-width rules currently are,
nor would they be more complicated than the min-font-size and the
max-font-size rules would be, and in fact they would be much simpler than
all the other min-* and max-* rules, since they would only have to be
stated once.)

However, the rules would not necessarily be foxed by the above, since they
would merely give one of the rules a stronger weight than the other
(hopefully the !minimum rule would win, and the font-size would become
9px, but maybe selector weight and cascading order would be important
too).

Maybe someone should just invent these rules and then we would have
something concrete to discuss... ;-)

-- 
Ian Hickson
: Is your JavaScript ready for Nav5 and IE5?
: Get the latest JavaScript client sniffer at 
: http://developer.netscape.com/docs/examples/javascript/browser_type.html
Received on Sunday, 18 July 1999 20:39:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:59 GMT