Hello Timothy,
Sunday, September 29, 2002, 9:27:19 PM, you wrote:
> Does any of this sound logical?
A quick check shows your numbers to be right.
> I seem to recall someone (Eric?) awhile back saying that EM is not
> exactly %, i.e. .8em ~= 80%
I'm sure em and % have differences; I just don't know what they are.
> I'm trying to put this into practice at
> http://tntluoma.com/css/tests/font-sizes.html
The CSS2.1 draft changes the scaling value from a static number
(originally 1.5 in CSS1 and revised to 1.2 in CSS2) to a variable
scale. Says CSS2.1:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#font-size-props>
Note 2. In CSS1, the suggested scaling factor between adjacent
indexes was 1.5, which user experience proved to be too large. In
CSS2, the suggested scaling factor for computer screen between
adjacent indexes was 1.2, which still created issues for the small
sizes. The new scaling factor varies between each index to provide
better readability.
Here are the values converted to decimals:
xx-small: 3/5 = 0.6
x-small: 3/4 = 0.75
small: 8/9 = 0.888...
medium: 1 = 1.0
large: 6/5 = 1.2
x-large: 3/2 = 1.5
xx-large: 2/1 = 2.0
This works much better than the previous systems.
--
John
_______________________________________________
css-discuss [css-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxx]
http://three.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/css-discuss
Sponsored by www.westciv.com - CSS resources | software | learning
|
