W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2009

Re: stability of root em unit spec

From: Keith Rarick <kr@xph.us>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:56:06 -0800
Message-ID: <478f05d50901071256u62d66c14p24d7ded2094d223c@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote:
> The CSS WG discussed the issue today and decided to keep the
> three-letter "rem" name.

Okay. Thanks!

Aside from the naming question, David's review of my patch brought up
a possible need for clarification in the spec. From his comment:

> Another issue where the spec could use some clarification
> (although where I tend to think what you implemented is
> the correct behavior) is the question of which document's
> root element should be used.  For example, in SVG, things
> can be pulled in from other resource documents; in those
> cases, the root element doesn't even necessarily have a
> font size, or it could have more than one if it's used in
> different places.  So I think we really do want the root of
> the root document in that case (which is what you've done),
> although I think the spec could be clearer.  (This is different
> from frames, where we should, and your code does, use
> the root of the document inside the frame/iframe, not the
> root of the root document.  I think, anyway.)

So to be totally safe I need to know two things:

1. Is this interpretation of the spec correct? (And perhaps the spec
should be clarified in this regard.)

2. Do we expect any other (unrelated) changes to the spec for rem in the future?

Thanks very much.

kr
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 20:56:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:15 GMT