John wrote on 2014-09-17 12:49 (GMT-0700): > I mean that in my gathering information about proper use of rems, Im > looking far and wide (online, people I know) and there is a disagreement > as to how rem units should be used.
One of the rem unit's important features, if not its most important, is that size cascade is ignored. IMO it thus exists so that containers, and text, can be (respectfully) sized *simply*, and *reliably*. Regardless of opinions what the rem unit "should" be used for, the absence of cascade on text and containers sized using rem the avoids the obfuscation font size cascade can create, which often makes results seem inexplicable (and causes new threads to start here). When you set a width in rem, the ratio between base font size and the container's design width remains constant no matter how many layers deep that container lives, and no matter what the base font size is. Absent a viewport contstraint, and absent you overriding the user's personal optimum font size (his browser's default size setting) WRT that particular container, your e.g. 11 words wide container will hold 11 optimally sized words regardless whether the user's default is 3mm, 12pt, 73px, 11px, 29px, 43px, etc. IOW, the user agent's default size is, as it should be to stylists, irrelevant... > ...responsive... ...a concept fundamental to the very idea of responsive design. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
