- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:28:26 +0000
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
- CC: Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@webkit.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> > [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/ > > Clarification: 1. The index contains 4 pages that referenced this value 2. Three of these pages were blogspot.com URLs 3. Three of these pages no longer use this value 4. The one left is http://elizabethkartchner.com/; this is where you land after following the blogspot.com URL originally indexed by the crawler.
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2012 19:29:08 UTC