W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2000

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

From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 03:51:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20000126115159.21464.qmail@web905.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
--- Ian Hickson <py8ieh@bath.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> > and since CSS is still in its infancy in terms of volume of data on
> > the Net and in terms of removing vagueness in the spec, I think it's
> > not too late to "change" (clarify) the definition of "em". There
> > aren't many documents or style sheets out there using "em", for
> > various reasons.
> 
> Not many compared to the billions of document actually on the web, no,
> but in absolute terms we are still talking tens to hundreds of
> thousands, I expect. Maybe even millions. That is still a _lot_ of
> documents. (Sorry, no reference...)

These documents will suffer severely from Netscape's and IE 3's despicable
support for CSS, so the only affected documents (i.e., those that are
rendered completely correctly and for which a change would thus be
significant) are those where they provide Netscrape and Exploder 3 with
separate styles from the usable browsers.

Having said this however, I do not see any need to change a _very_ clear
and well-defined definition (the em is a value that relates purely to the
numbers supplied and not to the font's actual characteristics cf. the ex,
which varies enormously) for pedantic reasons.
 
 

=====
----------------------------------------------------------
From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS))
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2000 06:52:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:03 GMT