- From: BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1) <jim.bigelow@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:21:53 -0800
- To: Bert Bos <Bert.Bos@sophia.inria.fr>
- Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, ernestcline@mindspring.com, www-style@w3.org
Bert wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1) wrote:
>
> > Håkon, Ian, Tantek, Bert and David,
> >
> > Do you have an opinion on Ernest's proposal? I feel that you should
> > explicitly express your support or rejection on this proposal.
> > Ernest's reasoning has convinced me. If I don't hear otherwise by
> > 9AM Pacific Standard Time, 19 February 2003, I will accept it.
>
> Let me see if I understand correctly:
>
> The question is whether 'em' can be used in '@page {size:
> 10em 20em}' We've said so far that that doesn't make sense,
> because '@page' can't contain 'font-size' and thus the 'em'
> is undefined.
Can you help me understand why and where it says that @page cannot contain
either font-size or font-family? This is exactly Ernest seems to be arguing
for. If they are allowed, then em and ex make sense.
-- Jim
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2004 21:21:57 UTC