Headings and css

Dave Rado wrote:

I tried your code, but:

a) It works in Firefox provided it's at the left margin of the page,
but it doesn't line up in IE when I try it - see my mock-up at:
http://tinyurl.com/3dfs99.

b) Even in Firefox, it doesn't line up correctly if it's not at the
left margin of the page - see my mock-up at: http://tinyurl.com/yvj3l2.

Or am I doing something wrong?

I'm not surprised Internet Explorer doesn't react the same way as
Firefox. I'm not going to try a rigorous study of this; try modifying
the code to get the behavior you want.

David
Stardate 7969.3

--
Practice the Klingon language on the tlhIngan Hol MUSH.
http://trimboli.name/klingon/mush.html

On 20 Dec, 19:05, David Trimboli <da... (AT) trimboli (DOT) name> wrote:

Dave Rado wrote:
I tried your code, but:

a) It works in Firefox provided it's at the left margin of the page,
but it doesn't line up in IE when I try it - see my mock-up at:
http://tinyurl.com/3dfs99.

b) Even in Firefox, it doesn't line up correctly if it's not at the
left margin of the page - see my mock-up at:http://tinyurl.com/yvj3l2.

Or am I doing something wrong?

I'm not surprised Internet Explorer doesn't react the same way as
Firefox. I'm not going to try a rigorous study of this; try modifying
the code to get the behavior you want.

David
Stardate 7969.3

--
Practice the Klingon language on the tlhIngan Hol MUSH.http://trimboli.name/klingon/mush.html

I think I'll go with dorayme's suggestion of using 2-column borderless
tables, which are easy to implement and work in all browsers. Thanks
for trying though.

Dave

On 19 Dec, 20:51, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article
7d6ddb79-eebc-4afb-9f8c-899e5af6f... (AT) q3g2000hsg (DOT) googlegroups.com>,

Dave Rado <dave.r... (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote:

Does the lack of further replies mean that using two-colums borderless
tables is the only practical way of doing it if I want it to look like
this:http://tinyurl.com/23xktn?

This is my best shot for you to date, I redid it in the style of
your above link:

http://netweaver.com.au/alt/rado.html

Now, there is something you can do to tweak it but it requires
careful juggling to set font-sizes and margins and float widths.
The above should do the trick for a few clicks of user browser
text adjustment. But to make it truly variable and fluid, we need
to work harder. Anyway, take a look.

May I take the opportunity to reiterate something that I am sure
few people will quite understand me on but which I have heard no
arguments against - ever.

It is not all that wrong for you to cast a page that is ripe for
an ordered list into a table. A simple ordered list is, at its
heart, a tabular affair. The order (think the numbers) are a set
of items to which there is an essentially unique correspondence
to another item (think the spiel that follows the number, the
content of a list item). When cast as a 2 col table it may not
*look* to everyone like a tabular affair. But it is. There is no
question about it. The rows are high because there is a lot of
stuff that corresponds to the numbers.

I am saying to you, there is nothing shonky about using a table
for a truly ordered list where you want to take advantage of the
built in formatting magic of HTML tables. (Often it is mistake to
over specify tables and cells with widths and stuff). It is not
necessarily an inferior method in this case.

--
dorayme

Thanks dorayme. Re. your code, it makes the table containing the text
(the simulated "page") much wider than I've set it up to be, and the
text in the headings doesn't wrap to the next line if it won't fit on
one line, so for instance if you press Ctrl+, part of the heading goes
off the screen. Thanks for trying though.

Re. your other points, I agree, css makes it just too hard to do
something that seems a very basic requirement to me, which is a great
shame; but borderless tables, for all the theoretical objections to
them, work perfectly, even in the oldest browsers: so reluctantly I'm
going to take your advice and use borderless tables for this. But many
thanks to all for putting so much time into finding a solution to
this, it's greatly appreciated.

Dave

In article
<5525c28f-4705-4f14-b7a6-f41a1f134b39 (AT) q3g2000hsg (DOT) googlegroups.com

,
Dave Rado <dave.rado (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote:

On 19 Dec, 20:51, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

This is my best shot for you to date, I redid it in the style of
your above link:

http://netweaver.com.au/alt/rado.html


Thanks dorayme. Re. your code, it makes the table containing the text
(the simulated "page") much wider than I've set it up to be, and the
text in the headings doesn't wrap to the next line if it won't fit on
one line, so for instance if you press Ctrl+, part of the heading goes
off the screen. Thanks for trying though.

Just out of a sense of play, in spite of tables being fine, let
us tweak the dimensions in the css a bit more then. Perhaps the
mark up is not clear to you, a bit tricky? But we can help
wrapping at smaller screen and browser sizes by limiting the
widths I set. I was eming wrapper width to 60em (quite a lot) but
see what happens when one "fixed pixels" them to no more than say
800px (not too bad for text):

http://netweaver.com.au/alt/radoFixedWidth.html

This should be ok for a few clicks of your Ctrl+ and Ctrl-

Re. your other points, I agree, css makes it just too hard to do
something that seems a very basic requirement to me, which is a great
shame; but borderless tables, for all the theoretical objections to
them, work perfectly, even in the oldest browsers: so reluctantly I'm
going to take your advice and use borderless tables for this. But many
thanks to all for putting so much time into finding a solution to
this, it's greatly appreciated.

I sense that you are not quite understanding or agreeing with my
argument on this. The theoretical objections are not always
right. And I would say to you not to be so "reluctant" in this
particular matter! Especially if your purpose is in substance an
ordered list (but I am not really examining whether it is or
not...).

--
dorayme

Hi dorayme

Sorry for the delayed reply - I've been offline for a few days.

On 20 Dec, 22:22, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

Just out of a sense of play, in spite of tables being fine, let
us tweak the dimensions in the css a bit more then. Perhaps the
mark up is not clear to you, a bit tricky? But we can help
wrapping at smaller screen and browser sizes by limiting the
widths I set. I was eming wrapper width to 60em (quite a lot) but
see what happens when one "fixed pixels" them to no more than say
800px (not too bad for text):

http://netweaver.com.au/alt/radoFixedWidth.html

This should be ok for a few clicks of your Ctrl+ and Ctrl-

When I try to integrate your code into my design and styles, the
heading numbers don't line up with the heading text - see:
http://tinyurl.com/yo4mnj. Am I doing something wrong?

I sense that you are not quite understanding or agreeing with my
argument on this. The theoretical objections are not always
right.

I'm not really up on what the theoretical objection are, beyond the
fact that some people seem to thing that for people using automatic
readers to read a website (rather than their eyes), tables are
apparently very difficult to follow.

And I would say to you not to be so "reluctant" in this
particular matter! Especially if your purpose is in substance an
ordered list (but I am not really examining whether it is or
not...).

dorayme

Well if you can consider a 180 page book containing hundreds of
sequentially outline-numbered headings to be a single ordered list,
then it's an ordered list. But it's a rather complex one, in that
between any two headings could be several pages of text, graphics,
tabular data, or whatever.

Dave

In article
<853b6d74-60ce-4204-bbd4-51e4b454911d (AT) w56g2000hsf (DOT) googlegroups.co
m>,
Dave Rado <dave.rado (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote:

Hi dorayme

Sorry for the delayed reply - I've been offline for a few days.

Ah yes, hello, Dave. I was wondering what happened to you. It is

no crime to be offline <g>

On 20 Dec, 22:22, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

Just out of a sense of play, in spite of tables being fine, let
us tweak the dimensions in the css a bit more then. Perhaps the
mark up is not clear to you, a bit tricky? But we can help
wrapping at smaller screen and browser sizes by limiting the
widths I set. I was eming wrapper width to 60em (quite a lot) but
see what happens when one "fixed pixels" them to no more than say
800px (not too bad for text):

http://netweaver.com.au/alt/radoFixedWidth.html

This should be ok for a few clicks of your Ctrl+ and Ctrl-

When I try to integrate your code into my design and styles, the
heading numbers don't line up with the heading text - see:
http://tinyurl.com/yo4mnj. Am I doing something wrong?


As far as I can see, you have left some of the crucial bits out.

But I have not thoroughly examined all your cascade. My effort
was like a fine Swiss clock, each little piece, absolutely needed
and all depending on each other... <g>

I am disappointed that you have moved to pts from my ems but
never mind, you cannot leave out the pts version of my;

h1, h2, h3 {
padding-top: 0;
margin-top: 0;
font-weight: bold;
font-style: normal;
}

h1 {
font-size: 1.8em;
}

h2 {
font-size: 1.5em;
}

h3 {
font-size: 1.3em;
}

In other words, when I put this "back" into the "Embedded
stylesheet" (the one in the head that overrides an external one)
as:

h1, h2, h3 {
padding-top: 0;
margin-top: 0;
font-weight: bold;
font-style: normal;
}

h1 {
font-size: 16pt;
}

h2 {
font-size: 14pt;
}

h3 {
font-size: 12pt;
}

the numbers then line up. The numbers and the corresponding
headings must be exactly the same in font-size, weight and face
etc for it to look right.

I sense that you are not quite understanding or agreeing with my
argument on this. The theoretical objections are not always
right.

I'm not really up on what the theoretical objection are, beyond the
fact that some people seem to thing that for people using automatic
readers to read a website (rather than their eyes), tables are
apparently very difficult to follow.

Well, why tables are not the best for various general layout is a

big subject and goes beyond the point about screen readers. I
will not go into it unless you have time and are particularly
keen. But in my conversation with you, I was merely focussing on
a very limited thing, namely the interchangeability between
simple ordered lists and simple 2 col tables. That is all. I was
basically saying that those who are fundamentalist about tables
need to rethink the issue where it comes to simple ordered lists.
I am not saying not to use ordered lists and to prefer tables.
Just that no need to sweat on using tables instead of simple
ordered lists with a clear conscience where it is easier for any
stylistic reasons at all.

And I would say to you not to be so "reluctant" in this
particular matter! Especially if your purpose is in substance an
ordered list (but I am not really examining whether it is or
not...).

dorayme

Well if you can consider a 180 page book containing hundreds of
sequentially outline-numbered headings to be a single ordered list,
then it's an ordered list. But it's a rather complex one, in that
between any two headings could be several pages of text, graphics,
tabular data, or whatever.

Ah... yes, it is another matter altogether whether in fact what
you are doing is an ordered list in nature. That the list
continues from page to page complicates the assessment a little.
But the mere length of the list with all the complicated things
in the list items hardly makes a difference for the actual
concept. The list items are big and complex. Fine. In a table,
the right row cells that correspond to the left col numbers are
equally big and complex. There is nothing in it.

I will now say it again, don't you worry about using a table for
your job. I wish I could give you a dispensation to do so on
condition that you don't use pts for font-size and learn about em
dimensioning. But my powers are limited, my enemies strong in
numbers and guile...

--
dorayme

On 27 Dec, 08:58, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article
853b6d74-60ce-4204-bbd4-51e4b4549... (AT) w56g2000hsf (DOT) googlegroups.co
m>,
Dave Rado <dave.r... (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote:

Hi dorayme

Sorry for the delayed reply - I've been offline for a few days.

Ah yes, hello, Dave. I was wondering what happened to you. It is
no crime to be offline <g



On 20 Dec, 22:22, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

Just out of a sense of play, in spite of tables being fine, let
us tweak the dimensions in the css a bit more then. Perhaps the
mark up is not clear to you, a bit tricky? But we can help
wrapping at smaller screen and browser sizes by limiting the
widths I set. I was eming wrapper width to 60em (quite a lot) but
see what happens when one "fixed pixels" them to no more than say
800px (not too bad for text):

http://netweaver.com.au/alt/radoFixedWidth.html

This should be ok for a few clicks of your Ctrl+ and Ctrl-

When I try to integrate your code into my design and styles, the
heading numbers don't line up with the heading text - see:
http://tinyurl.com/yo4mnj. Am I doing something wrong?

As far as I can see, you have left some of the crucial bits out.
But I have not thoroughly examined all your cascade. My effort
was like a fine Swiss clock, each little piece, absolutely needed
and all depending on each other... <g

I am disappointed that you have moved to pts from my ems but
never mind, you cannot leave out the pts version of my;

h1, h2, h3 {
padding-top: 0;
margin-top: 0;
font-weight: bold;
font-style: normal;

}

h1 {
font-size: 1.8em;

}

h2 {
font-size: 1.5em;

}

h3 {
font-size: 1.3em;

}

In other words, when I put this "back" into the "Embedded
stylesheet" (the one in the head that overrides an external one)
as:

h1, h2, h3 {
padding-top: 0;
margin-top: 0;
font-weight: bold;
font-style: normal;

}

h1 {
font-size: 16pt;

}

h2 {
font-size: 14pt;

}

h3 {
font-size: 12pt;

}

the numbers then line up. The numbers and the corresponding
headings must be exactly the same in font-size, weight and face
etc for it to look right.

I sense that you are not quite understanding or agreeing with my
argument on this. The theoretical objections are not always
right.

I'm not really up on what the theoretical objection are, beyond the
fact that some people seem to thing that for people using automatic
readers to read a website (rather than their eyes), tables are
apparently very difficult to follow.

Well, why tables are not the best for various general layout is a
big subject and goes beyond the point about screen readers. I
will not go into it unless you have time and are particularly
keen. But in my conversation with you, I was merely focussing on
a very limited thing, namely the interchangeability between
simple ordered lists and simple 2 col tables. That is all. I was
basically saying that those who are fundamentalist about tables
need to rethink the issue where it comes to simple ordered lists.
I am not saying not to use ordered lists and to prefer tables.
Just that no need to sweat on using tables instead of simple
ordered lists with a clear conscience where it is easier for any
stylistic reasons at all.

And I would say to you not to be so "reluctant" in this
particular matter! Especially if your purpose is in substance an
ordered list (but I am not really examining whether it is or
not...).

dorayme

Well if you can consider a 180 page book containing hundreds of
sequentially outline-numbered headings to be a single ordered list,
then it's an ordered list. But it's a rather complex one, in that
between any two headings could be several pages of text, graphics,
tabular data, or whatever.

Ah... yes, it is another matter altogether whether in fact what
you are doing is an ordered list in nature. That the list
continues from page to page complicates the assessment a little.
But the mere length of the list with all the complicated things
in the list items hardly makes a difference for the actual
concept. The list items are big and complex. Fine. In a table,
the right row cells that correspond to the left col numbers are
equally big and complex. There is nothing in it.

I will now say it again, don't you worry about using a table for
your job. I wish I could give you a dispensation to do so on
condition that you don't use pts for font-size and learn about em
dimensioning. But my powers are limited, my enemies strong in
numbers and guile...

--
dorayme

Sorry for the mistakes in my code, but as you've given me permission
to use tables for this, I think I won't spend any more time on trying
to get your code to work for me - but many thanks for all the time
you've put into this.

Can you point me to a good web page that explains in detail why I
should use ems rather than points, and also explains how to convert my
points measurements into ems so that the results look the same as
before on a default (Ctrl+0) screen?

Also, what about things like table borders (which I sometimes define
in points) - must they also be in ems? If so, why?

Dave

On 28 Dec, 18:47, Dave Rado <dave.r... (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote:

On 27 Dec, 08:58, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:



In article
853b6d74-60ce-4204-bbd4-51e4b4549... (AT) w56g2000hsf (DOT) googlegroups.co
m>,
Dave Rado <dave.r... (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote:

Hi dorayme

Sorry for the delayed reply - I've been offline for a few days.

Ah yes, hello, Dave. I was wondering what happened to you. It is
no crime to be offline <g

On 20 Dec, 22:22, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

Just out of a sense of play, in spite of tables being fine, let
us tweak the dimensions in the css a bit more then. Perhaps the
mark up is not clear to you, a bit tricky? But we can help
wrapping at smaller screen and browser sizes by limiting the
widths I set. I was eming wrapper width to 60em (quite a lot) but
see what happens when one "fixed pixels" them to no more than say
800px (not too bad for text):

http://netweaver.com.au/alt/radoFixedWidth.html

This should be ok for a few clicks of your Ctrl+ and Ctrl-

When I try to integrate your code into my design and styles, the
heading numbers don't line up with the heading text - see:
http://tinyurl.com/yo4mnj. Am I doing something wrong?

As far as I can see, you have left some of the crucial bits out.
But I have not thoroughly examined all your cascade. My effort
was like a fine Swiss clock, each little piece, absolutely needed
and all depending on each other... <g

I am disappointed that you have moved to pts from my ems but
never mind, you cannot leave out the pts version of my;

h1, h2, h3 {
padding-top: 0;
margin-top: 0;
font-weight: bold;
font-style: normal;

}

h1 {
font-size: 1.8em;

}

h2 {
font-size: 1.5em;

}

h3 {
font-size: 1.3em;

}

In other words, when I put this "back" into the "Embedded
stylesheet" (the one in the head that overrides an external one)
as:

h1, h2, h3 {
padding-top: 0;
margin-top: 0;
font-weight: bold;
font-style: normal;

}

h1 {
font-size: 16pt;

}

h2 {
font-size: 14pt;

}

h3 {
font-size: 12pt;

}

the numbers then line up. The numbers and the corresponding
headings must be exactly the same in font-size, weight and face
etc for it to look right.

I sense that you are not quite understanding or agreeing with my
argument on this. The theoretical objections are not always
right.

I'm not really up on what the theoretical objection are, beyond the
fact that some people seem to thing that for people using automatic
readers to read a website (rather than their eyes), tables are
apparently very difficult to follow.

Well, why tables are not the best for various general layout is a
big subject and goes beyond the point about screen readers. I
will not go into it unless you have time and are particularly
keen. But in my conversation with you, I was merely focussing on
a very limited thing, namely the interchangeability between
simple ordered lists and simple 2 col tables. That is all. I was
basically saying that those who are fundamentalist about tables
need to rethink the issue where it comes to simple ordered lists.
I am not saying not to use ordered lists and to prefer tables.
Just that no need to sweat on using tables instead of simple
ordered lists with a clear conscience where it is easier for any
stylistic reasons at all.

And I would say to you not to be so "reluctant" in this
particular matter! Especially if your purpose is in substance an
ordered list (but I am not really examining whether it is or
not...).

dorayme

Well if you can consider a 180 page book containing hundreds of
sequentially outline-numbered headings to be a single ordered list,
then it's an ordered list. But it's a rather complex one, in that
between any two headings could be several pages of text, graphics,
tabular data, or whatever.

Ah... yes, it is another matter altogether whether in fact what
you are doing is an ordered list in nature. That the list
continues from page to page complicates the assessment a little.
But the mere length of the list with all the complicated things
in the list items hardly makes a difference for the actual
concept. The list items are big and complex. Fine. In a table,
the right row cells that correspond to the left col numbers are
equally big and complex. There is nothing in it.

I will now say it again, don't you worry about using a table for
your job. I wish I could give you a dispensation to do so on
condition that you don't use pts for font-size and learn about em
dimensioning. But my powers are limited, my enemies strong in
numbers and guile...

--
dorayme

Sorry for the mistakes in my code, but as you've given me permission
to use tables for this, I think I won't spend any more time on trying
to get your code to work for me - but many thanks for all the time
you've put into this.

Can you point me to a good web page that explains in detail why I
should use ems rather than points, and also explains how to convert my
points measurements into ems so that the results look the same as
before on a default (Ctrl+0) screen?

Also, what about things like table borders (which I sometimes define
in points) - must they also be in ems? If so, why?

Dave

Also, are any other measurements apart from points a no-no, and if so,
why?

Dave

Please learn to quote on Usenet, or stay tuned to getting ignored by
people who might be able to help you. Please read the following in its
entirety, and you will understand how clueless your quoting style is:

Scripsit Dave Rado:

On 28 Dec, 18:47, Dave Rado <dave.r... (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote:
On 27 Dec, 08:58, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:



In article
853b6d74-60ce-4204-bbd4-51e4b4549... (AT) w56g2000hsf (DOT) googlegroups.co
m>,
Dave Rado <dave.r... (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote:

Hi dorayme

Sorry for the delayed reply - I've been offline for a few days.

Ah yes, hello, Dave. I was wondering what happened to you. It is
no crime to be offline <g

On 20 Dec, 22:22, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

Just out of a sense of play, in spite of tables being fine, let
us tweak the dimensions in the css a bit more then. Perhaps the
mark up is not clear to you, a bit tricky? But we can help
wrapping at smaller screen and browser sizes by limiting the
widths I set. I was eming wrapper width to 60em (quite a lot) but
see what happens when one "fixed pixels" them to no more than say
800px (not too bad for text):

http://netweaver.com.au/alt/radoFixedWidth.html

This should be ok for a few clicks of your Ctrl+ and Ctrl-

When I try to integrate your code into my design and styles, the
heading numbers don't line up with the heading text - see:
http://tinyurl.com/yo4mnj. Am I doing something wrong?

As far as I can see, you have left some of the crucial bits out.
But I have not thoroughly examined all your cascade. My effort
was like a fine Swiss clock, each little piece, absolutely needed
and all depending on each other... <g

I am disappointed that you have moved to pts from my ems but
never mind, you cannot leave out the pts version of my;

h1, h2, h3 {
padding-top: 0;
margin-top: 0;
font-weight: bold;
font-style: normal;

}

h1 {
font-size: 1.8em;

}

h2 {
font-size: 1.5em;

}

h3 {
font-size: 1.3em;

}

In other words, when I put this "back" into the "Embedded
stylesheet" (the one in the head that overrides an external one)
as:

h1, h2, h3 {
padding-top: 0;
margin-top: 0;
font-weight: bold;
font-style: normal;

}

h1 {
font-size: 16pt;

}

h2 {
font-size: 14pt;

}

h3 {
font-size: 12pt;

}

the numbers then line up. The numbers and the corresponding
headings must be exactly the same in font-size, weight and face
etc for it to look right.

I sense that you are not quite understanding or agreeing with my
argument on this. The theoretical objections are not always
right.

I'm not really up on what the theoretical objection are, beyond the
fact that some people seem to thing that for people using automatic
readers to read a website (rather than their eyes), tables are
apparently very difficult to follow.

Well, why tables are not the best for various general layout is a
big subject and goes beyond the point about screen readers. I
will not go into it unless you have time and are particularly
keen. But in my conversation with you, I was merely focussing on
a very limited thing, namely the interchangeability between
simple ordered lists and simple 2 col tables. That is all. I was
basically saying that those who are fundamentalist about tables
need to rethink the issue where it comes to simple ordered lists.
I am not saying not to use ordered lists and to prefer tables.
Just that no need to sweat on using tables instead of simple
ordered lists with a clear conscience where it is easier for any
stylistic reasons at all.

And I would say to you not to be so "reluctant" in this
particular matter! Especially if your purpose is in substance an
ordered list (but I am not really examining whether it is or
not...).

dorayme

Well if you can consider a 180 page book containing hundreds of
sequentially outline-numbered headings to be a single ordered list,
then it's an ordered list. But it's a rather complex one, in that
between any two headings could be several pages of text, graphics,
tabular data, or whatever.

Ah... yes, it is another matter altogether whether in fact what
you are doing is an ordered list in nature. That the list
continues from page to page complicates the assessment a little.
But the mere length of the list with all the complicated things
in the list items hardly makes a difference for the actual
concept. The list items are big and complex. Fine. In a table,
the right row cells that correspond to the left col numbers are
equally big and complex. There is nothing in it.

I will now say it again, don't you worry about using a table for
your job. I wish I could give you a dispensation to do so on
condition that you don't use pts for font-size and learn about em
dimensioning. But my powers are limited, my enemies strong in
numbers and guile...

--
dorayme

Sorry for the mistakes in my code, but as you've given me permission
to use tables for this, I think I won't spend any more time on trying
to get your code to work for me - but many thanks for all the time
you've put into this.

Can you point me to a good web page that explains in detail why I
should use ems rather than points, and also explains how to convert
my points measurements into ems so that the results look the same as
before on a default (Ctrl+0) screen?

Also, what about things like table borders (which I sometimes define
in points) - must they also be in ems? If so, why?

Dave

Also, are any other measurements apart from points a no-no, and if so,
why?

Dave

Did you get the idea? Fine. Now, to get an answer to your one-liner
question, before which you pointlessly, absurdly, aggravatingly quoted
dozens and dozens of lines, including inner quotations and a sig, just
read a CSS tutorial, then check the "Units" part in a CSS handbook,
reference, or specification.

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

On 2007-12-28, Dave Rado <dave.rado (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote:
[...]

Can you point me to a good web page that explains in detail why I
should use ems rather than points,

Em is font-size relative. So if you make a box 16em wide it's got room
for probably about 8 characters, depending on the font. But if the
font's bigger, the box gets bigger, so there's still room for about 8
characters, even though each character is now much larger.

Since you don't know how big the font is (even if you set it the user
may well override what you set) any box that's expected to contain a
bit of text is usually better with an em-size than a pixel size.

Otherwise the text can overflow its container when the font size is
increased which usually looks bad.

and also explains how to convert my
points measurements into ems so that the results look the same as
before on a default (Ctrl+0) screen?

You can't, because you don't know the font size.

Also, what about things like table borders (which I sometimes define
in points) - must they also be in ems? If so, why?

No need to use em for those-- they don't have text in them (not actually
in the border) and you just want a thin or thick line.