> From my this, it really visually appears as if the em is not an "m" or an > "M" in > even the most plain typeface. That's when the text is centered. If it's left > or > right aligned, you can fit in two more "m".
As has been discussed before in this thread, em is not a horizontal measure. It is a vertical measure, and is defined as the size of the font. Directly from the CSS 1 spec (just to show that it's always been defined this way - at least in CSS) "ems, the height of the element's font" http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1/#units The CSS 2.1 spec gets more precise, particularly in regard to x-height. http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/syndata.html#length-units It was (a really long time ago, and only a really long time ago *in print*) a measure of the width of a capital M. It has been (and is defined in the CSS spec as) the font height for quite a while. > more interestingly, I looked at the "computed size" in Chrome, and it > reported that the div had a calculated size of 140px. > That's not interesting at all. That's expected. The font-size is 14px (you set it to that). 1 em is the font-size. So 10em would be 14px x 10=140px. ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@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/
