- From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:42:21 -0800
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
RE: Units, font sizing, and zoom suggestion for CSS 3Karlsson Kent - keka wrote: >> em - horizontal size of the point size of the font ..." >The quote continues: >"about the [horizontal] size of the letter "M" in the current font." >which apparently wasn't to your liking. Neither line is particularly likable, but the first refutes one of your claims. The second does not support it. Both are inaccurate. Em is not dependent on points, and font glyphs can be so bold and extended and light and compressed that em is not really "about" M-width at all (unless your margin for size-similarity exceeds 200%). Some of your references for em definition contain provable fallacies, e.g. "...approximately 1000 points (unscaled) in PostScript..." and others are only historically relevant. In my experience the following best represents tradition in the printing/typesetting industry during the last few decades: em In composition, a unit of measurement exactly as wide and high as the point size being set. So named because the letter "M" in early fonts was usually cast on a square body. The width of M is irrelevant as a standard of measure when you consider (1) the variation in modern fonts, and (2) alphabets without an M. David Perrell
Received on Friday, 21 January 2000 14:45:26 UTC