RE: Units, font sizing, and zoom suggestion for CSS 3

> > But also, for example, you might have a font
> > which was defined on +- 2048 but which actualy used the 
> values +800 to
> > -300 for the actual glyphs - the 'em size' of the font would be
> > 1100/4096

If +800 is the top of first level accents, and -300 is the bottom
of (a non-swash(y); non-small-caps) p, and that is what "font-size"
should refer too, then we would be in agreement (if I interpret
your statement correctly).

> > On the other hand there are fonts that regularly go outside 
> their design
> > grid. Fonts for the American market regard unaccented 
> capital letters as
> > normal so all accents are outside the deiign griud. Font sfor the
> > European market regard accented capitals as normal (but 
> with only one
> > accent, and a small one at that) so talk about things like 
> the Å-height.
> 
> Are these European fonts also available in TrueType format? 
> Do they work
> well with Windows? For example, can you mix American and 
> European fonts
> on the same line at the same font-size, and still "look OK"?

No, that does not "look ok" with the current use of font size values.
For most text, using mostly lowercase letters, keeping the x-height
constant when mixing fonts will look ok (barring exceptional typeface
designs).  That the asked for font size come out as rather different
actual glyph sizes is a problem.  That is why my suggestion was that
both "font-size" and the suggested "font-ex-size" specified actual
measurable sizes of (certain) glyphs, and neither referred to the
typeface designer's "design square" (or whatever it should be called).

		Kind regards
		/kent k