Re: [WSG] Question to the others ...

[Jeroen Visser [ vizi ]]

Marilyn Langfeld wrote:
Hi folks,
My first post, since I've worked in print longer than web. In print, an 
em (and en) are mostly used to describe dashes (of the width of M and N) 
in a font. So they are appropriate to the task when used for that. They 
have been slightly redefined for the web (since an en is not always half 
an em).
Hi Marilyn,
To add to your posting: and the capital M or roman m are nowadays not 
really an em or en wide.

An “em” is a unit of measurement defined as the point size of the 
font—12 point type uses a 12 point “em.” An “en” is one-half of an “em.” 
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/emen/
An excellent explanation of the em and en units:

As always, someone has dug up al the idiosyncrasies that made id from 
the physical world to the digital space. :-)

Jeroen
--
vizi fotografie & grafisch ontwerp - http://www.vizi.nl/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: Re[4]: [WSG] Question to the others ...

[Marilyn Langfeld]

Hi folks,

My first post, since I've worked in print longer than web. In print, an em (and en) are mostly used to describe dashes (of the width of M and N) in a font. So they are appropriate to the task when used for that. They have been slightly redefined for the web (since an en is not always half an en):

An “em” is a unit of measurement defined as the point size of the font—12 point type uses a 12 point “em.” An “en” is one-half of an “em.”  http://www.alistapart.com/articles/emen/

Best regards,

Marilyn Langfeld
http://www.langfeldesigns.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


On Nov 14, 2004, at 6:48 AM, Iain Harrison wrote:

Sunday, November 14, 2004, 11:22:18 AM, Rob wrote:

I find the description of font-size a bit dodgy,

I agree. Defining a font size in terms of a unit that is based on a
font size seems pretty stupid to me too, but that's how it is. There
are lots of stupidities around.

Here in the UK, we use words like "referrer" "colour" "centre" and
so on. Seems that HTML is based on a foreign language.


-- 

Iain

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re[5]: [WSG] Question to the others ...

[Iain Harrison]

Sunday, November 14, 2004, 12:11:52 PM, Peter wrote:

>> And fifthly, be careful when inventing class names that they won't
>> be a rude word in any possible language in the world!

> Why would you use anything like that? Why take the chance of embarrassing
> anyone?

Now you are being silly.

It's possible to check that a word is not rude in languages you do
know (but even then not certain, unless you use a lot of rude words
yourself) but it most certainly is not possible to do so for every
language in the world.

Didn't Sean Connery have to use a different alias in Europe because
"connery" means something rude in one or more european languages?

>>  Iain

> End of discussion.

Really? Seems not. Or is this some sort of attempt at censorship by
an arrogant list admin, who doesn't want ridiculous assertions
questioned?




-- 

 Iain

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: Re[3]: [WSG] Question to the others ...

[Peter Firminger]

> This is relevant in several respects:
>
> Firstly, we have to realise that there are some brain-dead mail
> filtering systems out there, and have to be careful about the words
> we use or quote in emails.

I don't agree, I can be blue to people I know in person but profanity
(including that mild but inelegant word) is simply not appropriate for this
list. We have people of all ages and many cultures/religions including some
clergy that won't appreciate the 'potty-type'.

Don't do it and it won't be a problem. Common sense and courtesy rules and
that means respect everyone.

> Secondly, the people behind these filters need to know that they are
> having their email censored for them.

They probably do.

> Fourthly, we need to be wary of this stupidity spreading to
> HTML filtering.

Maybe.

> What happens when "bottom" is considered too rude by a growing wave
> of prudery? "margin-beneath", anyone?

Now you're stretching :)

> And fifthly, be careful when inventing class names that they won't
> be a rude word in any possible language in the world!

Why would you use anything like that? Why take the chance of embarrassing
anyone?

>  Iain

End of discussion.

Thanks,

Peter


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: Re[4]: [WSG] Question to the others ...

[Rob Mientjes]

> > I find the description of font-size a bit dodgy,
> 
> I agree. Defining a font size in terms of a unit that is based on a
> font size seems pretty stupid to me too, but that's how it is. There
> are lots of stupidities around.

Well, in the print business, it's much more strict, which I prefer.
There are so much more units that I do not know of, but I try to keep
it clear in HTML too. That's hard with such inconsistencies.

> Here in the UK, we use words like "referrer" "colour" "centre" and
> so on. Seems that HTML is based on a foreign language.

I prefer UK English. Everything web is just crappy English :/


But on topic, em is relative and is the width of an M. There you have
it, but just don't mix it all up. There's a lot of confusion around
fonts. (To illustrate, Word uses pts that are bigger than the ones in
InDesign.)
-- 
Cheers,
Rob.
» http://www.zooibaai.nl/b/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re[4]: [WSG] Question to the others ...

[Iain Harrison]

Sunday, November 14, 2004, 11:40:17 AM, Iain wrote:

> Fourthly, 

There was a third, but I decided it was rubbish. Sorry, folks.


-- 

 Iain

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re[4]: [WSG] Question to the others ...

[Iain Harrison]

Sunday, November 14, 2004, 11:22:18 AM, Rob wrote:

> I find the description of font-size a bit dodgy,

I agree. Defining a font size in terms of a unit that is based on a
font size seems pretty stupid to me too, but that's how it is. There
are lots of stupidities around.

Here in the UK, we use words like "referrer" "colour" "centre" and
so on. Seems that HTML is based on a foreign language.


-- 

 Iain

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re[3]: [WSG] Question to the others ...

[Iain Harrison]

Sunday, November 14, 2004, 11:14:21 AM, I wrote:

>> Not totally. An em is the width of (no s--t!) an 'M' glyph. But the
>> rest is allright for me.

> Totally. The font size is set in em units. The unit is defined as
> the width of an 'm' glyph.

Since quoting Bob's message, I've had two bounce messages from mail
systems that rejected the email because I'd quoted a four letter
word meaning faeces ("shirt" without an r). Oddly, both rejections
are from .au domains.

This is relevant in several respects:

Firstly, we have to realise that there are some brain-dead mail
filtering systems out there, and have to be careful about the words
we use or quote in emails.

Secondly, the people behind these filters need to know that they are
having their email censored for them.

Fourthly, we need to be wary of this stupidity spreading to
HTML filtering.

What happens when "bottom" is considered too rude by a growing wave
of prudery? "margin-beneath", anyone?

And fifthly, be careful when inventing class names that they won't
be a rude word in any possible language in the world!

-- 

 Iain

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: Re[2]: [WSG] Question to the others ...

[Rob Mientjes]

I find the description of font-size a bit dodgy, so I wanted to make
clear that all units have a meaning.


On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:14:21 +, Iain Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sunday, November 14, 2004, 11:02:43 AM, Rob wrote:
> 
> >> em: the 'font-size' of the relevant font
> 
> > Not totally. An em is the width of (no shit!) an 'M' glyph. But the
> > rest is allright for me.
> 
> Totally. The font size is set in em units. The unit is defined as
> the width of an 'm' glyph.
> 
> --
> 
>  Iain
> 
> 
> 
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> 
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
> 
> 


-- 
Cheers,
Rob.
» http://www.zooibaai.nl/b/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re[2]: [WSG] Question to the others ...

[Iain Harrison]

Sunday, November 14, 2004, 11:02:43 AM, Rob wrote:

>> em: the 'font-size' of the relevant font

> Not totally. An em is the width of (no shit!) an 'M' glyph. But the
> rest is allright for me.

Totally. The font size is set in em units. The unit is defined as
the width of an 'm' glyph.


-- 

 Iain

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Question to the others ...

[Rob Mientjes]

> em: the 'font-size' of the relevant font

Not totally. An em is the width of (no shit!) an 'M' glyph. But the
rest is allright for me.

-- 
Cheers,
Rob.
» http://www.zooibaai.nl/b/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Question to the others ...

[Bert Doorn]

G'day

> Firstly, what kind of measurement is ex?  

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units

Relative units are:

em: the 'font-size' of the relevant font 
ex: the 'x-height' of the relevant font 
px: pixels, relative to the viewing device 

I tend to use a mixture of em and px.  Have never used ex but it may have
its uses.

> I have never seen that before. Secondly, how would a 
> fluid width layout work with a faux column like I've
> used?I guess it wouldn't.

Eric Meyer may have a solution.
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2004/09/03/sliding-faux-columns/

My own point of view (purists won't agree but I can live with that): if it's
easily done with a simple, css styled table, why go out on a limb with
complex CSS and background images.  In many cases the difference in download
is minimal, and without the need to download a background image, the
(single, not nested) table approach can be more efficient.  I prefer not to
use background images if all I want is a plain colo(u)r.

> Since the graphic is 780px wide, surely the container has 
> to be 780px wide too.  No?

If the image is presentational only, make it a background (perhaps ironic
given what I said above)  Otherwise you might try specifying its size in
em's so it will scale up/down as appropriate.  780px is too wide for many
people who still run at a resolution of 800x600.  Why annoy them with
horizontal scrollbars?

Regards
--
Bert Doorn, Web Developer
Better Web Design
http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au
Fast-loading, user-friendly websites.


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] Question to the others ...

[Michael Kear]

... and to Felix if he's going to be a bit less aggressive 

Felix said that my width (on http://hawkradio.org.au if you're coming in
late to this saga) ought to be set at 100ex.  He says: "Make your overall
width 100ex instead of 780px and the relationship between container width
and text size will hold constant."

Firstly, what kind of measurement is ex?  I have never seen that before.
Secondly, how would a fluid width layout work with a faux column like I've
used?I guess it wouldn't. 

So how can you get the column effect I've designed, with the columns going
the full depth of the page regardless of which column is longer, without
using the fixed-width graphic?  Since the graphic is 780px wide, surely the
container has to be 780px wide too.  No?

Cheers
Mike Kear
Windsor, NSW, Australia
AFP Webworks
http://afpwebworks.com
.com,.net,.org domains from AUD$20/Year





**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**