backgroun color in media print

"Petr Vileta" <stoupa (AT) practisoft (DOT) cz> writes:

Thank you for mention of 1px font size. What do you think -
what font size can be minimal value to not be
ignore/overwrite by browsers?

None. Suppose a user has macular degeneration; they might
well need to set a minimum font size equivalent to 72pt
because that's the smallest size of type they can read. So
a browser shouldn't allow fonts smaller than that.

--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn (AT) cl (DOT) cam.ac.uk

Jon Fairbairn wrote:

"Petr Vileta" <stoupa (AT) practisoft (DOT) cz> writes:

what font size can be minimal value to not be
ignore/overwrite by browsers?

None.

No argument there.

Suppose a user has macular degeneration; they might
well need to set a minimum font size equivalent to 72pt

Perhaps, but if they have a severe problem like this I doubt they rely
solely on browser settings for readable text. I imagine they use a
magnifier or other system tool instead.

--
Berg

In article <60tnssF1qdnvvU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
Bergamot <bergamot (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:

Jon Fairbairn wrote:
"Petr Vileta" <stoupa (AT) practisoft (DOT) cz> writes:

what font size can be minimal value to not be
ignore/overwrite by browsers?

None.

No argument there.

Suppose a user has macular degeneration; they might
well need to set a minimum font size equivalent to 72pt

Perhaps, but if they have a severe problem like this I doubt they rely
solely on browser settings for readable text. I imagine they use a
magnifier or other system tool instead.

I don't have macular degeneration, but I have resorted to specifying
a minimum font size of 10 in FireFox. My default is set to Times 16.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to use a font smaller than 9,
unless they were deliberately trying to make something hard to read...

David Stone wrote:

I don't have macular degeneration, but I have resorted to specifying
a minimum font size of 10 in FireFox.

Peanuts. My minimum is 17px.

--
Berg

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Scripsit Petr Vileta:

Why didn't you post a URL? The URL is essential for accessing all the
relevant information.

Care to describe the real problem in context, with URL? The odds are
that you don't really need an _inline_ rectangle. If you do, an image
is the best shot.
OK, I posted example page to http://web.practisoft.cz/colored_rectangles.html

All important inforamtions are there I hope ;-)
I want to mention again that the goal is to _print_ pattern book (colour
card?) to paper.
I would be happy to use strict mode but if a quirk mode only solve this then
quirk is sufficient for me.
I'm open for any idea.
--
Petr Vileta, Czech republic
(My server rejects all messages from Yahoo and Hotmail. Send me your
mail from another non-spammer site please.)

Please reply to <petr AT practisoft DOT cz>

"Petr Vileta" <stoupa (AT) practisoft (DOT) cz> wrote

OK, I posted example page to
http://web.practisoft.cz/colored_rectangles.html

Use an image. The colour blocks are *content*, not background.

--
Richard.

Scripsit Petr Vileta:

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
- -
Care to describe the real problem in context, with URL? The odds are
that you don't really need an _inline_ rectangle. If you do, an image
is the best shot.
OK, I posted example page to
http://web.practisoft.cz/colored_rectangles.html

So there's no need for an inline rectangle: what you have is logically a
two-column table, with color samples in the first column and color names
in the second. You can use block elements in the first column for the
sample.

I want to mention again that the goal is to _print_ pattern book
(colour card?) to paper.

Understood. This excludes the most obvious approach of using a
background color. And I suppose you don't want to create a server-side
script that generates an image that consists of a one-color rectangle -
that wouldn't be rocket science, but perhaps too inconvenient and
somewhat resource-consuming.

So this leaves us ideas like colored borders. You can implement it by
using a two-column table, with empty div elements in the first column so
that these elements have a _top_ border of the desired thickness. The
width of the boxes is then set by setting the width of the div elements.

To make this work _also_ in Quirks Mode you need some little trick like
making the div element contain a single-pixel transparent image.

Demo: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/test/col.html

I would be happy to use strict mode but if a quirk mode only solve
this then quirk is sufficient for me.

Quirks Mode is just a name for different collections of bugs. It's a
moving target. It probably won't go away soon, but don't expect IE 8 or
Firefox 4 to have the _same_ collections of bugs as their Quirks Mode as
previous versions.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Scripsit Petr Vileta:

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
- -
Care to describe the real problem in context, with URL? The odds are
that you don't really need an _inline_ rectangle. If you do, an
image is the best shot.
OK, I posted example page to
http://web.practisoft.cz/colored_rectangles.html

[...]
To make this work _also_ in Quirks Mode you need some little trick
like making the div element contain a single-pixel transparent image.

Demo: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/test/col.html

Bingo! This is the trick - 1 pixel transparent image. Thanks. I will

experiment with divs without table but defined as display: table-cell or some
from this family. The purpose is to spare amount of code. To understand me
right, now real page is about 180kB using divs. If I use table for all
color-name pairs then pag wil be about 220kB or 300KB. But many thanks again
for right direction me.
--
Petr Vileta, Czech republic
(My server rejects all messages from Yahoo and Hotmail. Send me your
mail from another non-spammer site please.)

Please reply to <petr AT practisoft DOT cz>

Petr Vileta schrieb:

I will
experiment with divs without table but defined as display: table-cell or
some from this family. The purpose is to spare amount of code. To
understand me right, now real page is about 180kB using divs. If I use
table for all color-name pairs then pag wil be about 220kB or 300KB. But
many thanks again for right direction me.

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
what you have is logically a two-column table, with color samples in the
first column and color names in the second.

If what you have is logically a table, then the HTML way to mark it up
is to use the table/tr/th/td etc. elements, no matter how big you
document is. Use the appropriate elements for the purpose. Maybe you
should split your document.

--
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
(Te Deum, 4th cent.)

Scripsit Petr Vileta:

I will
experiment with divs without table but defined as display: table-cell
or some from this family.

That doesn't pay off, since the entire family of table-something values
for the display property is unsupported by all existing versions of IE.

But since you want something fairly simple, you _could_ use, instead of
table rows, pairs of div elements with the first div floated left.

The purpose is to spare amount of code.

I don't think that's very relevant in most browsing situations.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/