- From: Braden N. McDaniel <braden@shadow.net>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 22:24:37 -0400
- To: "Daniel Glazman" <Daniel.Glazman@der.edf.fr>, "Tantek Celik" <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>, <www-style@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: Daniel Glazman <Daniel.Glazman@der.edf.fr> To: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu> Cc: L. David Baron <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>; <www-style@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 6:33 PM Subject: Re: When font-size and font size collide > Tantek Celik a écrit : > > > > > However, I *think* <font size="+2"> is often treated as relative to the > > > base font size of the document, not the font size of the parent > > > element. > > > > It is. FONT SIZE=+/- is pretty bizarre and completely unrepresentable in > > CSS. > > Right. But when BASEFONT assumes the default value (3), there should be no difference between using signed and unsigned values, correct? > Next problem : FONT SIZE=+3 cannot be easily deprecated because it is > not possible in CSS to declare that the font size of an element should > be increased or decreased by more than one arbitrary unit... The % > values do not easily solve the problem. > I'd really love to make these FONT elements disappear from all my > documents but it is a very dirty job w/o such a feature. Since CSS has no notion corresponding to BASEFONT (fortunately!), I would think that font-size: xx-large; should do the job (assuming you're using "normal" for the default text size--and there are few good reasons not to do that). If you want a *particular* relationship between sizes, ems or percentage are appropriate. -- Braden N. McDaniel braden@endoframe.com <URI:http://www.endoframe.com>
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 1999 22:31:34 UTC