- From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:48:24 -0400
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: "WAI ER IG List" <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
I just tried a test table with Netscape 4.7 and IE5. Both browsers exhibit the same behaviour. Any table border size 1em or less shows up the same as a 1 pixel border, independent of the document font size. A table border of 2em displays the same as a 2 pixel border, independent of the document font size. A table border of 3em displays the same as a 3 pixel border, independent of the document font size. So it appears that the browsers ignore the relative 'em' size and convert the border to an absolute number. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org> To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca> Cc: "WAI ER IG List" <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 9:15 AM Subject: Re: Technique 3.4.1 Check document for relative units of measure > .1 em is a good size. For someone who is using a very large fot so they can > see it, a 2px border may just disappear, but a .1 em border will still be > visible. > > Charles McCN > > On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Chris Ridpath wrote: > > Could the 'border' attribute be an exception to this rule? It's a common > practice to use 1 or 2 for a table/image/frame border to indicate that there > should be some sort of thin line surrounding the object. If we do require a > relative measure for a border, what would it be? (I think that an 'em' or > 'ex' would be too large to replace a 1 pixel border.) > > Chris > > > > -- > Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 > W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI > Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia > September - November 2000: > W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France >
Received on Thursday, 28 September 2000 11:48:48 UTC