On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:38:16 -0500, Felix Miata wrote: > On 2008/12/10 23:15 (GMT+0200) Jukka K. Korpela composed: > >> There is indeed a lot of variation... >> > That they do: http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/Font/font-rounding.html > >> What's puzzling is that IE seems to _truncate_ e.g. 11.9px to 11px instead of >> rounding it to 12px. >> > > More than just seems to, and it doesn't really puzzle me. AFAIK, truncation > of px font > size decimals is fallout from a M$ design decision made, probably for <font > size=X> > and/or <big>/<small> handling, long before the existence of CSS. What was the > first IE > made from, Mosaic? It wouldn't surprise me if that held its inception.
Thanks to Felix for the font-size samples. It's instructive to look at them in as many browsers as possible. After a lot of experimentation, I concluded the following percentages work reasonably well, with nominal points and pixels listed for 96 DPI resolution. As others rightly caution, expect a pixel difference here and there. Points vs. Pixels and Percents Nominal Points Size Pixels/Percent 6pt nonpareil 8px 50% 7pt minion 9px 56.5% 8pt brevier 11px 69% 9pt bourgeois 12px 75% 10pt long primer 13px 82% 11pt small pica 15px 94% 12pt pica 16px 100% 14pt english 19px 119% 16pt columbian 21px 132% 18pt great primer 24px 150% 21pt double small pica 28px 175% 24pt double pica 32px 200% 36pt double great primer 48px 300% All results at 96 DPI. I still have to test at 120 DPI. I hope this is helpful. Cordially, David -- ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
