On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson <ch...@cfajohnson.com> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Tom Livingston wrote: > >> Lack of rem support is easily taken care of with a fallback declaration >> using px: >> >> Font-size:16px; >> Font-size:1rem; > > > Better still, using em or %: > > font-size: 100%; > font-size: 1rem; > > >> This allows MOST browsers to use a relative font unit - honoring a users >> preference for font size - without the compounding issues (and any >> other) of the em. > >
Why use rem at all if you are going to fall back to em? You are probably going to have to do a lot of extra coding to overcome any issues that arise should the fallback ems come into play. If you code and structure your pages without worrying about compounding issues etc, and then the ems kick in on a browser that doesn't support rems, you're most likely going to have more issues to overcome than if you fall back to pixels. -- Tom Livingston | Senior Front-End Developer | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
