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

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