Re: [Fink-devel] Concerning fink.css..

[Max Horn]

At 9:25 Uhr -0500 16.01.2003, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Max Horn wrote:

At 8:35 Uhr +0100 16.01.2003, David wrote:

Inoticed that we use "pt" to determine which font size to display.
That might be problematic on some operating systems since point size
is not something that renders at the same resolution on all screens
across all platforms. It would be better to use pica,ems or exs.

We might decide to convert it to a pure CSS site one of these day
(I'd be all for it).

BTW, last time I checked pica was an absolute measure, too, and
dependenent on the screen resolution just like cm, mm and pt.

In my immediate past life (i.e. I am still trying to get my last salary
cheques) I worked on accessibility for W3C, and one of the basic things is to
use %, ex or em for font sizes, and where possible images (this is harder). I
would also be all for a CSS-only layout - I use lynx when I don't care about
styling, and it handles clean HTML fine, and a modern browser when I do.

Yeah, I like those, too, but still the page has to render right on IE 5/Mac, Safari, and Chimera/Mozilla. Ideally, it should be usable from Opera/Mac, OmniWeb, iCab and Konquerer, too. (I am implicitly assuming Lynx/Links are supported, so I don't list them - but let's keep'em in mind anyway).

And yeah it's OK for me to make the font sizes relative.

 >>Now when redefining <pre> we use px as a size denominator for

padding and margin. That is something we really should consider
changing. Pixel rendering is dependant on the screen resolution and
the screen depth which can lead to bad inconsistencies.  An absolute
size adjustment like cm or mm might be a good choice here.

px for margins is much less of an issue - although there are screen and
font-size differences at work the amount of padding is generally not as
critical, and cm/mm/pica don't solve the problem any better (since they still
vary in effect according to the users font size).

I don't think px sizing is that bad, in fact if you want a fixed
layout, it's the only way to do it.

If you want a fixed layout you should probably be using PDF

I didn't say I want, I just said what you need if you want one :-) And "fixed" is not meant in the strict sense here, anyway, so the PDF remark is not really fitting.

 - it isn't (IMHO)
sensible to try and get exactly the same layout on my browser at 1200x800 as
it is when I decide to shrink it to 600x800 or 900x300 or move to another
machine at 600x400. But there is some value to consistency, and with the
generally awful state of browsers there needs to be careful thought and
testing to work out what the good trade-offs are...

Yup yup.


Max
--
-----------------------------------------------
Max Horn
Software Developer


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com
Understand how to protect your customers personal information by implementing
SSL on your Apache Web Server. Click here to get our FREE Thawte Apache Guide: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0029en
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel