On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 01:13:03 +0000, Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How much time and money does it cost to avoid using px (which does cause > real world problems in the erroneous implementation of IE/Win, and > therefore calls for an interim solution in the spirit of WCAG 1.0 > guideline 10) in favour of ems?
Excuse me? 'erroneous implementation'? Which specification says how text-zooming should be implemented? I may be wrong, but I guess - none. Texts zoom is (ironically) an invention of Microsoft. It is nice and useful feature. Don't confuse 'relative' with 'scalable by browser'. Relative means just that - physical size of, say 12px can vary depending on the size of actual pixel, which depends on screen size, its resolution, etc. Absolute units should have the same physical dimension, doesn't matter what, and what's way it is virtually impossible to have them implemented on screen. Funny enough, you may look at text-zoom feature as of wrong implementation. Mozilla lets you zoom text with font-size set in points. But 72 points, according to spec is 1 inch - no matter what. IE does not resize text in pt. Pixels are bit more complicated but they have fixed size for given device to. That leads us to.... text-zooming, font-scaling is a violation of the specification? So who is wrong? Or is there anyone wrong at all? >Saying that the percentage > of users who need it is minimal, and that those users should really > change their settings to ensure they can use your site, is not really a > valid set of arguments, imho. Saying in contrary is no more valid, sadly. <...> Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
