Re: thoughts on non-compliant browsers

> I am not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that pixel sizing 
> of fonts has no value? that it, in reality, has no meaning?

I'm saying that it's no different from sizing in terms of any other CSS unit.

> Perhaps you didn't read my entire post or simply selectively snipped, 
> but I explained why we choose pixel sizing for *one* part of the page 
> which has large text to begin with.

I read your post most carefully, thank you.  If the text is large, then the
users won't have issues reading it and won't zoom and there won't be a problem,
right?  After all, it's not like the font zoom will accidentally end up zoomed
from the last time they used the browser, or something.

On the other hand, if the users can't read your text even at the size it's at,
then surely it's better for them to be able to read it after all then for them
to simply give up on trying to read your page?

> Pixel font sizes is the problem we face if we want mozilla to render the 
> page correctly.

Yes, but like I said nothing makes pixel font sizes special.

> So, Boris, should I take it that you are not in favor of conforming to 
> standards?

Robert, I clearly explained that Mozilla's behavior _does_ conform to the
standards.  It's all well and good to go about tossing around obscenities and
calling things names, but this list is for discussion of CSS standards.

Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at
science fiction listen to weather forecasts and
                          -- Kelvin Throop III

Received on Sunday, 7 March 2004 18:51:29 UTC