- From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:26:23 -0400
- To: "Felix Miata" <mrmazda@earthlink.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Le Mar 17 avril 2012 15:54, Felix Miata a écrit : > On 2012/04/18 03:32 (GMT+0800) Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu composed: > [snipped] >> if we add >> 'xxx-large', we should probably add 'xxx-small' for consistency. > > In most environments, 9px is the smallest size legible across entire > charsets. > > In most environments, xx-small maps to 9px. > > HTML <font> never had anything that would map to xxx-small. > > Adding xxx-small would do nothing useful. Felix, I entirely agree with you. Adding xxx-small would do nothing useful, helpful; it would not promote readability, legibility, accessibility. I see no usefulness, no relevance to xxx-small. Gérard -- CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011 http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html Contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/ Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contributions-css21-testsuite.html
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 05:26:57 UTC