CSS Fonts: Detect Font DPI use specific CSS

*brucie* <shit (AT) usenetshit (DOT) info>:

Christoph Paeper said:

My feeling is you set your preferred font size too low,

theres nothing wrong with my font size. whats wrong is authors telling
me should really be 10% smaller.

Nobody (serious) advertised a font size smaller than 100% for the _main
text_. I would not support a font size smaller than about 90% of the
user's selected comfortable size for anything less important than the main
text.

i don't like authors telling me what my font size should be (or how long
the lines of text should be). stop trying to control me.

Not everything has to be the same size, but the text that matters should
be in the user's preferred size.

you have a killfile,

No, I don't.

--
Useless Fact #1:
Barbie's measurements if she were life size: 39-23-33 [99-58-84].

"kchayka" <usenet (AT) c-net (DOT) us> wrote

C A Upsdell wrote:
"kchayka" <usenet (AT) c-net (DOT) us> wrote in message
news:2vstebF2oggguU1 (AT) uni-berlin (DOT) de...

% units do not trigger the "insanely small" text size
problem in WinIE. Only em units do.

Wrong. Once upon a time, I did use % units, and I did have endless
shrinking text size problems

Caused by using a body text size smaller than 100%?

Doctor, it hurts when I do this...

Then don't do this ...

"brucie" <shit (AT) usenetshit (DOT) info> wrote

In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets C A Upsdell said:
and switching to small, x-small, etc. stopped this problem for good.

the problem with keywords is that browsers don't use the same base size.
just as kchayka said.

Please explain. Are you simply referring to the IE problem, which as I have
explained several times is easily overcome?

The inconsistency is in IE, easily overcome. And the CSS trickery which
overcomes this inconsistency can be copied and pasted from site to site,
changing only the selectors, as needed.

or you could just use % and not fart around with unneeded hacks.

I could use %: but I would rather use something that works.

"Neal" <neal413 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

C A Upsdell wrote:

Wrong. Once upon a time, I did use % units, and I did have endless
shrinking text size problems (at least with some browsers)

Which? I'd like to know, as I've never encountered such issues.

A very worthy question. Unfortunately I can't show you because I fixed all
my live sites using the technique I have described. I did find two old
sites -- shut down and no longer on the web, but still on my PC -- which use
the % technique and which have the shrinking text problem with NN4.80,
IE5.01, IE5.5, and IE6.0 ... but NOT with Opera or Mozilla. Moreover, the
nature of the % problems suggests that they resulted from improper handling
of inheritance by the troublesome browsers.

Although I can't show you the dead sites, I hope that you will believe me
when I say that I have re-confirmed that such % problems exists in the
sites, and that the problems occurred ONLY with certain browsers whose
compliance with standards is (ahem!) not admirable.

"Neal" <neal413 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

C A Upsdell wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote
90%, that is.
Not if it is nested, which what the OP was concerned with. 90% of 90% of
90% ... can quickly become too small to read ...

So, apply font-size more logically.

Do you need to apply a 90% in a 90% in a 90%, ever? Normally, I set
font-size for the body (at 100%) and set special things at say 90%. If you
never nest this upon itself, you avoid the problem.

think you're inventing an unrealistic problem.

Not inventing. Note my response to another of your messages in which I
confirmed the problem ... with some browsers.

"kchayka" <usenet (AT) c-net (DOT) us> wrote

C A Upsdell wrote:
"kchayka" <usenet (AT) c-net (DOT) us> wrote in message
news:2vt2frF2nis53U1 (AT) uni-berlin (DOT) de...
You put a bandaid on it by using font-size keywords instead of %. But
you're only treating the symptoms, not the problem.

The symptoms are a progressively smaller font-size with nested elements.
The problem is setting explicit sizes less than 100%. Stop doing that
and the symptoms disappear.

You misunderstand. The problem occurred only with sizes specified in %
units. And when I stopped using % units, in favour of my current method,
the problem disappeared. Moreover, the problem only occurred with certain
browsers (look for details in another of my messages on this thread), and
the pattern of the problems suggest that they were due to faulty handling of
inheritance by these browsers.

C A Upsdell wrote:

"Neal" wrote
C A Upsdell wrote:
I did use % units, and I did have endless
shrinking text size problems

Which?

A very worthy question. Unfortunately I can't show you... I hope that
you will believe me
when I say that I have re-confirmed that such % problems exists in the
sites, and that the problems occurred ONLY with certain browsers whose
compliance with standards is (ahem!) not admirable.

See, I use % exclusively, and I've never had such issues. I'd like to
believe you, but my experience tells me otherwise.

Perhaps you can go into the kitchen and whip up a little demo?

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:32:25 -0500, C A Upsdell
<cupsdell0311XXX@-@- (AT) XXXrogers (DOT) com> wrote:

"Neal" <neal413 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message
newspshi9tiz46v6656 (AT) news (DOT) individual.net...
C A Upsdell wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote
90%, that is.
Not if it is nested, which what the OP was concerned with. 90% of 90%
of
90% ... can quickly become too small to read ...

So, apply font-size more logically.

Do you need to apply a 90% in a 90% in a 90%, ever? Normally, I set
font-size for the body (at 100%) and set special things at say 90%. If
you
never nest this upon itself, you avoid the problem.

think you're inventing an unrealistic problem.

Not inventing. Note my response to another of your messages in which I
confirmed the problem ... with some browsers.

I did a test - see http://users.rcn.com/neal413/fontsizetest.html - where
I compare calculated percentages to what it should be. In each section
we're comparing:

1) 81%
2) 90% nested in 90%
3) 100% (baseline)
4) 90% of 90% of 90%
5) 72.9%

1) and 2), and 3) and 4), should be the same size, one calculated in the
browser, the other calculated by hand and set as a direct size.

The three sections themselves are 200%, 150%, and 100%. As you would
expect, the browser has to do a lot of math to calculate a font size here.

Best results were seen in Firefox. I could not discern the direct
percentage from the calculated percentage.

Next best - surprise - IE6. In the 200% * 72.9% div, it looks too small as
compared to when IE calculate 200% * 90% * 90% * 90%. All others work out
fine.

The worst was Opera 7.23. Browser calculations nearly always rendered
smaller than the equivalent direct % size, the opposite of the one issue
in IE.

However, the nesting I have done is intentionally heavy. I imagine the
reasons for the size differences are due to how the browser rounds in its
math. The sizes are not so drastically different that I suspect there's
harm in my continuing to use % exclusively in my CSS font sizes. So long
as we avoid heavy nesting, it should work out.

I'm interested in the observations of others and results in other
browsers, or differences in the same browsers on other machines.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:46:42 -0500, Neal <neal413 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

1) and 2), and 3) and 4), should be the same size, one calculated in the
browser, the other calculated by hand and set as a direct size.

Correction - 1 and 2 should be the same, and 4 and 5 should be the same.

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Neal wrote:

C A Upsdell wrote:

Wrong. Once upon a time, I did use % units, and I did have endless
shrinking text size problems (at least with some browsers)

Which? I'd like to know, as I've never encountered such issues.

NN4. Unclosed P elements and percentage size.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>