Rob Emenecker wrote:
> Gunlaug,
>
> In your article at <http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_13.html> you
> make a comment of...
>
> "re-triggering the bug.
> Note that this IE-bug can be re-triggered if font-size keywords are
> used anywhere in a document. The bug is then inherited by the children of
> the element in question, and IE is on it again.
> So, you've been warned. Unless you intentionally want to trigger the
> "extreme font-resizing bug", don't mix in font-size keywords."
>
> What exactly do you mean by this? Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't
> understand what you mean when you specifically say "if font-size keywords
> are used anywhere in a document".
>
> In the one fix you give of...
> html {font-size: 100%;}
> body {font-size: 1em;}
>
> Wouldn't that second BODY declaration be considered a "font-size keyword"?
>
> Are you saying that fonts should only be spec'ed in percents?
>
> Please clarify.
The 'em' unit is not a keyword - it is a unit for a numeric value and as
such no different from 'px', '%', 'ex', 'pt' etc.
Declaring 'font-size: larger' or 'font-size: smaller' on an element,
introduces "relative size keywords"[1] and will re-trigger the IE/win
bug. So, if a font-size in 'em' is declared on a direct child of that
element, the bug will affect that child.
This is what I say in that article, and I have presented proof of this
behavior on CSS-D before - a few months ago. Can't find the demo I used
as proof at the moment.
regards
Georg
[1]http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-CSS21-20040225/fonts.html#font-size-props
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
