FACORAT Fabrice wrote: > Le mer 10/09/2003 � 14:27, Felix Miata a �crit :
> > Personally I find rather little distinction between helvetica and arial, > > and in fact use arial as my default on systems on which it is installed. > Arial is to bold and on some system where arial is not correctly > installed you may have on bold arial. Why should it matter whether bold or not? M$'s arial.ttf bolds at 18px and above. Many fonts bold starting at 16px (Comic Sans MS), 17px (Trubuchet MS) or 18px (Verdana & Arial). Don't remember which, but one common font bolds at 20px. Check some for yourself at http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/fonts-face-index.html > > information that varying text sizes convey. Instead, no size should be > > set at all, or the size should be set to 100%, so that the user sees > > whatever size he has determined best suited to his use. > or font-size: normal; That's OK on pages you don't expect to be viewed in IE. But, IE has bugs, and if you don't want people seeing the effects of the IE bugs, always set a font-size using % in body. > > The browsers all use the first listed font they find. The only way > > helvetica would be used in either case is when arial does not exist but > > helvetica does exist and gets selected because it is in fact a > > sans-serif font. > > What really should be used instead is font-family: > > sans-serif; > > That way, the user's choice of sans-serif will be used, be it arial or > > verdana or helvetica, or, heaven forbid, the Mandrake Linux installed > > sans-serif default. > you will not have only mdk linux. You may have RH ( poor fonts quality > ). I don't think RHL has a problem any more since switching to freetype 2. -- "...[B]e quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry...." James 1:19 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html
