- From: Chris Wilson (PSD) <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:08:49 -0700
- To: "'David Perrell'" <davidp@earthlink.net>, "'Gayle Kidder'" <reddik@sandiego.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Ah, I see - without the body size set, we're still inheriting the default "medium" font size as the basis for ems and percent. I will try to make sure this gets fixed before we ship. That is the only problem, though, right? -Chris Chris Wilson cwilso@microsoft.com *** > -----Original Message----- > From: David Perrell [SMTP:davidp@earthlink.net] > Sent: Friday, July 18, 1997 11:17 AM > To: Chris Wilson (PSD); 'Gayle Kidder' > Cc: www-style@w3.org > Subject: Re: font sizes in ems > > Chris Wilson (PSD) wrote: > > Gayle, I don't understand what the problem you're seeing with IE4.0 > pp2 > > is. As far as I can tell, we render this correctly - in fact, we > render > > your first page correctly if you set the font-size explicitly on > <BODY> > > _AND_ <TD>. The first line (explicit 10pt) is the same size as the > > second (1em), as I believe it should be - and the third line (.9em, > > etc.) is smaller, as it should be. These do not scale when you > select a > > different default font size (I don't believe they should). Am I > missing > > something? > > With NSN4.01, 1em Verdana is considerably larger than the 10pt > Verdana. > How do they manage to do this? > > Did you see Gayle's screen shot at > <http://www.beachmedia.com/www/em2.gif>? > > The default size, the 100% size, and the 1em size should be the same, > but they are not. > > 100% and 1em should refer to the browser default if the default has > not > been changed by an author stylesheet declaration, and it appears that > neither N nor IE do an exact match. I wonder why this is so. > > David Perrell
Received on Friday, 18 July 1997 15:08:56 UTC