- From: fantasai via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2025 17:30:17 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
In general I hate these `<meta>` things, but I think for this use case it makes sense, and I agree 100% that letting `rem` units behave as intended is a better author experience. Some things to think about: - Use `compat` or `fixed` and `user` or `adjustable` as the keyword values for the `<meta>`? Since that better reflects that the initial value is fixed at 16px for compat, and the new value is intended to match user adjustments. - Actually make `medium` compute to the user-preferred body text size, so the keyword can be used on non-root elements. Remap the other absolute size keywords appropriately so that they also scale with `medium`. - Consider remapping the other absolute font-size keywords in a way that reflects the OS text scale, which IIRC doesn't always scale linearly with the body text size. - Maybe also allow these keywords in `calc()` etc. so that authors can interpolate those sizes, too? - Recommend to authoring tools that they offer simulation of various size preference _including accessibility settings_ (which are not always available without an opt in, and can be significantly larger than the author might expect otherwise), to help make sure authors write pages that work for all users. -- GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12380#issuecomment-3024934305 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2025 17:30:18 UTC