Re: the *precise* definition of 1em
To: "Joel N. Weber II" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: the *precise* definition of 1em
From: "David Perrell" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 00:35:32 -0700
From email@example.com Sun Jul 20 03: 45:40 1997
X-Authentication-Warning: www10.w3.org: Host sweden-c.it.earthlink.net [18.104.22.168] claimed to be sweden.it.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161
Joel N. Weber II wrote:
> My point is that when your approximation of the size for one is 12
> points, and the approximation of the size for the average is 10
> then when you specify 1em, the child element will now have an
> size of 10 points, and so the closest match for font one will now be
> nine points, where the parent size of one was 12 points.
Ah. I see. You are revising the first choice to produce a more
consistently sized set. That seems like the right thing to do. Child
elements are likely to look better when smaller than the parent, not
> Hmm... if you're trying to make something as tall as the text, it
> need to take the size of the largest font, I think.
That too makes sense.
> I don't think X11 can scale bitmap fonts. You can have scalable
> but some fonts can't be scaled.
I believe scalable bitmap fonts are supported in X11R5, and SPEEDO
(Bitstream?) vector fonts. And what about FontTastic? Hey, why not
write your own font server?