- From: Erik van der Poel <erik@netscape.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 16:05:38 -0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>
- CC: fahrner@pobox.com, www-style@w3.org
"L. David Baron" wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:57:55 -0800, erik@netscape.com (Erik van der > Poel) wrote: > > > > OK. But if backwards compatibility is a consideration (and I think it > > should be), then we cannot change the em, either. It should probably > > continue to mean the max height of the font, if that's what most > > installed copies of browsers do. > > The problem with that is that it's massively inconsistent, since the > 'em' is just a particular type of <length>, and it would be rather > strange to say that the 'em' means different things for different > properties (since for all properties other that 'line-height', the 'em' > reliably refers to the font-size requested). Are you saying that the currently installed browsers treat "em" differently, depending on the property? Erik
Received on Monday, 22 November 1999 19:08:39 UTC