RE: [css3-fonts] Addition of font-size: xxx-large


[John Daggett:]
> 
> Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> 
> > CSS 3 Fonts, like CSS 2.1, defines <absolute-size>s ranging from
> > xx-small to xx-large.  The legacy HTML <font size=1> corresponds to
> > xx-small, 2 is small (skipping x-small), and 3-6 are medium to
> > xx-large.  There is no CSS equivalent to <font size=7> -- 3rem is
> > different because it varies if you change the root element's font
> > size.  I would like to request that a "font-size: xxx-large" value be
> > defined, corresponding to <font size=7> (scaling factor of 3).
> >
> > WebKit already supports "font-size: -webkit-xxx-large".  Both HTML5
> > and HTML Editing APIs refer to a nonexistent CSS value of "xxx-large":
> 
> I don't fully understand the logic behind the desired addition here.
> The <font> element is considered obsolete so why is important to try and
> make features associated with it's functionality interoperable?  Is there
> much use of -webkit-xxx-large?
> 
> > The lack of xxx-large causes significant problems for editing (in the
> > sense of <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/raw-file/tip/editing.html>).
> > Rich-text editing commands (document.execCommand()) can create styles
> > using either CSS or HTML tags.  The fontSize editing command accepts 1
> > to 7 as parameters, because it was designed before CSS was commonly
> > supported.  The parameters 1 to 6 work fine, but in CSS mode,
> > document.execCommand("fontSize", false, "7") can't do anything useful.
> > WebKit produces -webkit-xxx-large, which isn't interoperable, and
> > Gecko doesn't support CSS mode for fontSize at all.  The editing spec
> > says to output <font size=7> here even in CSS mode.
> 
> Again here, I'm not seeing why following the feature definition leads to
> any sort of problem in real use.  It seems like you could just as well
> trim out the use of 7 from the set of permissible values and not much
> would change.  Unless there's really a lot of Webkit-specific content that
> actually uses this.
> 
> I don't think it's a big deal to add it but as Tab said these relative
> font-size values are a bit goofy to begin with, I'm not sure we should be
> adding new ones.
> 
Fwiw I queried an internal index of ~1m web pages from ~100,000 web sites.
This value came up in only 4 pages, two of which have removed the value
since the crawler snapshotted them. Interestingly, 3 of these were blogspot.com
pages so it may have come from a generic template that has been updated.

The one that still uses this property redirects to a Wordpress page:
http://elizabethkartchner.com/

Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2012 19:20:56 UTC