- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:17:42 -0700
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, phoenix <phoenix@google.com>
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > * Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>This solved his problem exactly. However, this means the sizes of the >>images aren't quite predictable, which means that the sizing of >>related parts of the document won't quite match up anymore. Text that >>was supposed to be the same size as the image now may be slightly >>smaller or larger, which is a problem if you're using it as a >>background-image on a button, for example, or if it's just placed next >>to the image and meant to preserve a certain visual rhythm. > > Could you outline example code that would exhibit this problem, while > accounting for the usual problems in this area, like user style sheets > that set a minimum acceptable font size that is larger than the font > size specified in author style sheets, or downloadable fonts being un- > available due to network problems? It seems odd to me that whatever is > used to address those problems would fail when image sizes become un- > predictable in the manner you describe. User style sheets that adjust the font size will mess up the desired ratios anyway, so a little bit more scaling up or down won't make it any worse. Downloadable fonts don't seem to affect this, as it isn't really font-specific, except insofar as some fonts are slightly larger or smaller visually when given the same font-size. This isn't about rescuing broken layout, but rather just maintaining the intended visual rhythm while still allowing browsers to unpredictably scale the images a bit. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 03:18:37 UTC