- From: Susan Lesch <lesch@macvirus.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 09:42:03 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org, fahrner@pobox.com
Todd Fahrner wrote: >" I thought it was established that the UA has >" a hypothetical default stylesheet and that changing the default font in the >" UA changes the base font size in that stylesheet. Therefore, changing the >" font on the toolbar should change the font size in any element for which >" font size has not been specified either in absolute units or relative to an >" ancestor element specified in absolute units. Conversely, elements declared >" in author stylesheets in absolute units should be unaffected by UA font size >" changes. > > This is precisely as I see it, also. Thanks for the nice > articulation, David. What I'd really like to know is whether > there's any dissent on this point (especially among > implementors). At the risk of repeating ground you have covered, I would like to know why the font-size scaling factor example is explicit at 1.5, so unlike type size like TeX's 1.2? Also why have 10pt (small=medium?) and 15pt examples for on-screen display? [1] I admired David Perrell's description of the future. But I find there is no coherent font-size style plan for right now [reference summary, 2]. The CSS1 sample style sheet for HTML 2.0 lists no BODY font size; the CSS2 sample for HTML 4.0 is in em; the Base Stylesheet (22-Nov) has medium for a BODY value, more like the initial value in the CSS2 spec (shipped with no BODY size in its own style sheet, a good plan maybe!); WDG recommends percents and keywords and no absolute sizes; CSS2 phase two needs absolute lengths.[3] [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-CSS2/fonts.html#h-14.2.4 [2] http://www.macvirus.com/test/font/fontsize.html [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-CSS2/fonts.html#descdef-font-size Susan Lesch
Received on Sunday, 30 November 1997 12:52:14 UTC