W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2004

RE: FW: [css3-page] LCWD issue 22 -- [22] Section 3.3.2 <length>

From: BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1) <jim.bigelow@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:21:53 -0800
Message-ID: <79417AA297C63F4EA33B68AC105464A901E42239@xboi22.boise.itc.hp.com>
To: Bert Bos <Bert.Bos@sophia.inria.fr>
Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, ernestcline@mindspring.com, www-style@w3.org

Bert wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1) wrote:
> 
> > Håkon, Ian, Tantek, Bert and David,
> > 
> > Do you have an opinion on Ernest's proposal? I feel that you should 
> > explicitly express your support or rejection on this proposal.  
> > Ernest's reasoning has convinced me.  If I don't hear otherwise by  
> > 9AM Pacific Standard Time, 19 February 2003, I will accept it.
> 
> Let me see if I understand correctly:
> 
> The question is whether 'em' can be used in '@page {size: 
> 10em 20em}' We've said so far that that doesn't make sense, 
> because '@page' can't contain 'font-size' and thus the 'em' 
> is undefined.

Can you help me understand why and where it says that @page cannot contain
either font-size or font-family?  This is exactly Ernest seems to be arguing
for.  If they are allowed, then em and ex make sense.


 -- Jim
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2004 21:21:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:26 GMT