Alan Gresley wrote: > i > The only font-size that I use for this page, > > <http://css-class.com/test/> > > is this. > > h1 {font-size:160%;} > h2 {font-size:125%;} > h3 {font-size:115%;} > h4 {font-size:100%;} > > a[href="#navigation"] {font-size:140%;} > > .float2 h3 {font-size:140%;} > > #wrapper2+div+div a {font-size:small;} > > #wrapper1+div p {font-size:143%;} > > > Notice how I am only targeting specific elements (ones that contains > text) and not whole containers or boxes. This is how you simplify. The > below two do nothing and are not really needed. > > body {font-size: 100%;} > #navigation ul {font-size: 100%;} > > > Attempting to use ems in the first place when learning leads to the > long path of understanding font-size. My first rule in CSS which I > learned the hard way is, > > *LESS IS BETTER*. > > >
Well, we're getting there, Felix. No need for math solutions that only geeks, accountants, pencil-pushers, and their ilk get. The software understands less is more-- providing the author of the style sheet understands that concept and is capable of employing it. The software gets it, understands it, and renders it accordingly and consistantly. And, more important -- providing the sheet author honors user preference rather than hers -- users will get their preference. ~d -- http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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/
