Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
I find that an odd formulation, since _no_ letter is 1em wide.
On what basis do you claim that, Jukka ? Surely not even you have had time to measure every glyph in every font that has ever been invented ... !
But that’s not the most common common misconception; people think that em is the width of the _capital_ letter ‘M’.
I think if you replace "is" by "was", it may well be a valid assertion : Knuth wrote (TB, p.~60) "In olden days, an 'em' was the width of an 'M', but this is no longer true; ems are simply arbitrary units that come with a font, and so are exes". Philip Taylor ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] 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/
