> I'm giving up on this topic.
> After reading the specs numerous times, I'm realizing that the specs
> themselves are circular. I feel like I'm trying to find out if the chicken
> or the egg came first.
>
That is why Ghostmode started from the first principles and as I see it he
wante
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Tim Climis wrote:
From my this, it really visually appears as if the em is not an "m" or an "M"
in
even the most plain typeface. That's when the text is centered. If it's left or
right aligned, you can fit in two more "m".
As has been discussed before in this thread, em
I'm giving up on this topic.
After reading the specs numerous times, I'm realizing that the specs themselves
are circular. I feel like I'm trying to find out if the chicken or the egg
came first.
On ems and exes:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/syndata.html#length-units :" em:
th
Am 25.01.2012 11:04 schrieb Ghodmode:
I think we're going around in circles.
This matches my impression.
It shows that an em is as wide as it is tall, but it's not the size of
the letter 'm'.
As described in the spec, the em unit is defined as the font size. "em"
is maybe not the best of a
Ghodmode wrote:
It shows that an em is as wide as it is tall,
No, it does not. An "em" is one-dimensional, not two.
Philip Taylor
__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css
I think we're going around in circles.
Here's my existing experiment page:
http://www.ghodmode.com/experiments/emsize.html
I'm going to do another one with more information.
It's a square block, 1em wide and tall, with a lowercase 'm' inside
it. I used Javascript (jQuery) to get the width and h
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Paceaux wrote:
> geeze, this morning I thought I knew this stuff. Now I'm lost.
See... it was a good blog entry... it made ya think :)
__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-
Thank you very much Paceaux. Youve made a number of good points. I
think I'll do a follow-up blog entry.
more comments inline ...
--
Ghodmode
http://www.ghodmode.com
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Paceaux wrote:
> I think other comments have kind of addressed that for most of us in this
>
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Paceaux wrote:
This morning I totally understood font-sizing. Now I don't know
anything. Please share any insights you have.
Frank M Taylor
http://frankmtaylor.com
Keep it simple. body{font:100%/1.4 sans-serif}. And allow the primary,
secondary, and tertiary c
On 2012/01/24 18:31 (GMT-0700) Paceaux composed:
geeze, this morning I thought I knew this stuff. Now I'm lost.
I wasn't thinking that the em or the ex stretched the glyph. I understand
that the font-size constructs a square out of the measurement, regardless
of the type of measurement.
geeze, this morning I thought I knew this stuff. Now I'm lost.
I wasn't thinking that the em or the ex stretched the glyph. I understand that
the font-size constructs a square out of the measurement, regardless of the
type of measurement.
assuming an "m" is 16px wide but 10px tall, it's to
On Jan 25, 2012, at 9:13 AM, Paceaux wrote:
> I read the CSS2 spec this afternoon, and learned that the em is really an
> "em square" and the square is how font-size is determined.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/fonts.html
No, not really. 'em' as an unit of measurement is defin
Years ago I read a book on typography and it didn't click until today that the
"em" isn't strictly a horizontal measurement in CSS. I'd never thought that
hard about it until today. I was naturally concluding that "em "was a
horizontal measurement and "ex" was vertical - and that either could
> From my this, it really visually appears as if the em is not an "m" or an
> "M" in
> even the most plain typeface. That's when the text is centered. If it's left
> or
> right aligned, you can fit in two more "m".
As has been discussed before in this thread, em is not a horizontal measure.
I
This a curious subject that you've brought up.
So to satisfy my curiosity as to the size of an em and an ex, I tried the most
boring experiment possible: http://cssdesk.com/aHUQR
From my this, it really visually appears as if the em is not an "m" or an "M"
in even the most plain typeface. That
I think other comments have kind of addressed that for most of us in this
discussion group, we knew that the em isn't one "M".
Regarding your article, I have a few thoughts:
1. Experiments have results. For the sake of your readers, provide the results
of the experiment.
2. explain the experim
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;
pe
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2012-01-24 8:23, Ghodmode wrote:
>
>> So, how big is an ‘em’? I set up a small experiment to tell me just
>> that.
>
>
> I don’t see the point of the blog entry or the experiment.
You acknowledged misconceptions. That's the point...
2012-01-24 8:23, Ghodmode wrote:
So, how big is an ‘em’? I set up a small experiment to tell me just that.
I don’t see the point of the blog entry or the experiment.
http://www.ghodmode.com/blog/2012/01/i-have-a-really-big-m/
The text says ‘Letters aren’t all 1em wide.’ I find that an
I wrote a new blog entry inspired by past discussions on WebDesign-L
and CSS-D: "I Hava a Really Big 'm'"
Contemporary wisdom says that we should use the relative unit ‘em‘
for most, if not all, element measurements in web design.
So, how big is an ‘em’? I set up a small experiment to te
20 matches
Mail list logo
