[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On a website I've recently developed (www.cabotconsultants.com.au) I opted
> for this...
> p.body {
> font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
> font-size: x-small;
> line-height: 2;
> }
> I found it's clean and clear.
Is your monitor huge, or your resolution very low? The most common
meaning of x-small is 10px
<http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/absolute-sizes-MvE.html>. That's
much too small for average or worse eyes for normal body/paragraph text
on normal or higher resolution on common display sizes. It's only 1px
above the minimum size a full font set can be rendered, at regardless
how good your eyes or what your own settings are. The problem is even
worse for those who don't have Verdana installed, as it's the second
largest common font size around (AFAKI, only Bitstream Vera Sans is
larger, and it isn't all that commonly installed yet), designed
precisely to look good at small sizes.
> Just wondering... What is the difference of
> using the percentage font-size as opposed to the preset "medium, small,
> x-small, etc" sizes? Are these 'preset' sizes still relative to the body
> user defined font size?
Once difference is that the keywords are not subject to inheritance
cascade, but at least they can be resized by the user even in IE. The
wiki has more to say: http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=UsingFontSize
--
"Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only
a day! No, no, man was made for immortality."
President Abraham Lincoln
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************
