- From: Chris Wilson (PSD) <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 13:47:31 -0700
- To: "'Gayle Kidder'" <reddik@sandiego.com>
- Cc: Carolyn Wilson <cwilson@MICROSOFT.com>, www-style@w3.org
I see the problem in IE4. I'll attempt to fix the fact that a non-"medium" default size is not being used to calculate font sizes set in EMs. BTW, my email address is "cwilso@microsoft.com". Please don't send mail for me to "cwilsoN" - Carolyn Wilson doesn't really need a copy. (Sorry again, Carolyn.) -Chris Chris Wilson cwilso@microsoft.com *** > -----Original Message----- > From: Gayle Kidder [SMTP:reddik@sandiego.com] > Sent: Friday, July 18, 1997 12:49 PM > To: Chris Wilson (PSD) > Cc: Carolyn Wilson; www-style@w3.org > Subject: Re: font sizes in ems: a clarification > > Chris Wilson (PSD) wrote: > > > > Gayle, I don't understand what the problem you're seeing with IE4.0 > pp2 > > is. > > This discussion has drifted a bit from my original intent (as things > will do), so let me get back to my original problem: > The original page I posted had no BODY default size on purpose. The > idea > was to force the browser to use the reader's default font size. This > neither ver4 browser appears to do at the moment. I tested this by > trying various fonts on the page and choosing to give them first an > absolute size of 10pt and then a relative size of 1em. My > understanding > from the group discussion was that the relative size should be > relative > to my user default. I can change my default size from now til > Christmas > but it has no effect on the rendering of the lines spec'ed as 1em. So, > either: > > 1) The idea that setting an initial font size in ems will respect the > user's default size and scale font sizes accordingly is fallacious, or > > 2) The browser makers have not seen fit (or clearly enough) to > implement > it. > > (The third option, of course, is that I misunderstand the > specification.) I suspect the browsers are either using a browser > default setting rather than my reader's choice, or the size is > relative > to the previous element rather than the parent element. In either > case, > specing in ems appears useless. > > There is the separate problem, discovered along the way (and > inadvertently complicated by the lack of inheritance in tables) of > whether an em size on any particular font renders the same as a point > size. On this, > 1) MSIE appears to render an em the same size as a point. The glitch I > captured from David Perrell's demo, however, demonstrated that if you > change font size using the View/Fonts menu, it only affects the first > rendering (which was font-size: 1em) but does not scale the rest of > the > page accordingly (i.e., font-size: 2em is relative to the original > font > size but not the new resize). You'll have to revisit his demo to see > this. > > 2) NS4 does not render an em the same size as a point, nor does it > seem > to use the reader default. This led to my assumption that it was > scaling > the font larger for an em and therefore one needed a scale-down factor > to spec in ems. This latter you can see with NS4 on a new, cleaned up > demo at: > http://www.beachmedia.com/www/emdemo1.html > > I hope this helps clarify the problem as I see it. > > Gayle Kidder > > > > 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? > >
Received on Friday, 18 July 1997 17:00:25 UTC