Re: font sizes in ems

Todd Fahrner wrote:
> Yet another reason why I script IE3 out of the CSS loop:

That actually looks better than it does in the W95 IE3.02. Ems are not
supported in this semi-implementation.
> Do you intend the anomalous inter-paragraph spacing?

Yes, but I since removed it. As you have noted, NSN4.01 is out-of-spec
with regards to vertical margins. Had I not given paragraphs some
margin, the paragraphs would have been closer together than the line
spacing, because I have text-height spec'd at 1.1ems. Netscape is
discarding the CSS1-prescribed 'half-leading' at the top and bottom of
paragraphs. Although there are arguments for doing so, that is not what
the spec calls for -- the 'line box' is not part of the margin and does
not collapse. To compensate for NS's failure, a .1em vertical margin is
required. I initially put a .3em margin to highlight the fact that a
margin was there. I since changed it to .1em, so it now appears as it
_should_ appear with vertical margins set to zero.

I also added a link to a screen dump from an NT running a 640 x 480
display and neither of the specified fonts installed. The page was
perfectly legible at this resolution, with much the same look as on the
high-res display.

It looks like the page was quite readable on your 72ppi Mac, too, and,
again, with much the same look as on W95 at 114ppi. I suspect that the
equivalent point size on your Mac is considerably different than that
on either of the Win machines.

David Perrell

Received on Friday, 18 July 1997 22:33:32 UTC