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

Re: thoughts on non-compliant browsers

From: Robert Koberg <rob@koberg.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:31:58 -0800
Message-ID: <404F18CE.5090303@koberg.com>
To: Mikko Rantalainen <mira@cc.jyu.fi>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

Mikko Rantalainen wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Anne van Kesteren (fora) wrote:
> 
>> Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
>>
>>> Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The font zoom does not scale up the background-image.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, because it's a _font_ zoom.  It simply sets the equivalent of 
>>>> !important font-size rules in the user stylesheet, like I said.
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that the ONLY issue is that CSS doesn't have a method to 
>>> scale background images. This limits styles like the one the OP was 
>>> using. If one could strech the background image to always fill the 
>>> element it's background of, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 
>>
>>
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-background-20020802/#background-size>
> 
> 
> I assume you've read most of the thread. As you remember, the OP was 
> whining how Mozilla's font zoom made his site look "incorrect". 

No, the 'OP' (me) was writing that it made the (standards compliant) 
site unusable in a browser that was adhering to the spec -- is that 
off-topic? If a spec allows for something that will make something 
unusable, might that spec be flawed? Also, since I can't remember the 
last time this 'OP' used px, I had confusion over the fact in CSS that a 
pixel is not a pixel. My apologies.

-Rob

> Pointing 
> to CSS3 specification isn't going to help his problem, is it?
> 
> After saying that, I'm aware that this list isn't for end user nor page 
> author support. So, I'd recommend the OP to join c.i.w.a.stylesheets -- 
> just remember to read http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-mFAQ.html first.
> 
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 08:29:40 GMT

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