I’m not a CSS guy, but I never seen an alternative as you suggest. I suppose there is recommend way to handle this problem. Looking at modena.css it always uses “em” to define font size (instead of pt or px).
Wouldn’t that work for you ? Felipe On Mar 5, 2014, at 9:51 AM, Jeff Martin <j...@reportmill.com> wrote: > So what is the best approach to dealing with pt sizes in CSS? Do I multiply > every pt size by 3/4 in CSS? Will this always result in Node Fonts that are > 4/3 times the specified CSS value? > > I assume I can't just use px and expect Node Fonts to have the identical > value, only in points, regardless of the display. > > Maybe Region should have a new attribute called FixCSSPoints that we could > set after adding style sheets? > > jeff > > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Felipe Heidrich <felipe.heidr...@oracle.com> > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On Mar 4, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Jeff Martin <j...@reportmill.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Tom! I assume the thread was this one: >>> >>> Font.font() says it is point size but it looks like it are pixels >>> >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2014-January/012398.html >>> >>> I guess the final word is that CSS assumes 1pt==1/92in, >> >> Yes >> >>> and Nodes convert that to the real world on render? >>> >> >> On the printer yes, on the display it assumes 72 (pt=px). >> >> >>> And that this is basically a bug, but it can't be fixed due to legacy >>> considerations? >>> >> >> Yes >> >> Felipe >> >>> >>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Tom Schindl <tom.schi...@bestsolution.at> wrote: >>> >>>> There was a thread some time ago on this List with explainations of this >>>> behavior! >>>> >>>> Tom >>>> >>>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet >>>> >>>>> Am 05.03.2014 um 01:03 schrieb Jeff Martin <j...@reportmill.com>: >>>>> >>>>> I can't quite wrap my head around why when I specify an -fx-font-size of >>>>> 9pt in CSS, it turns into a 12 pt font in my rendered node. I suppose CSS >>>>> is upscaling for my 96 dpi device, but it makes other measurements that >>>>> depend on that setting potentially wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Any suggestions on how I should be thinking about this (other than that >>>>> this is a bug :-)? >>>>> >>>>> jeff >>> >> >
