Thom Brown wrote:
> In a way I am. Users have the ability (although not often exercised)
> to change the default font and size. I gave the HTML tag a font-size,
> so that anything under it would be based on that. We use relative
> font sizes in our CSS, which means usually we'd be proportional to
> whatever the user had set. But what I've done is set a base size
> (17px in this case, and only in documentation) which everything else
> will be based on. So the downside is whatever the user set their
> default font size to in their browser will be ignored (or not fallen
> back to if you prefer). This doesn't, however, prevent them from
> using a text zoom (available in pretty much every web browser) to
> increase the size of all rendered fonts.
>
> The problem is, by default, Firefox sets proportional fonts to 16px,
> and monospace to 12px, so there's always a visual discrepancy when
> these fonts appear alongside one another.
>
> But the benefit of the javascript hack was that we weren't setting a
> base font size for everything, we just bump up the relative font size
> for elements which are monospaced by default.
>
> There's pros and cons to both approaches. I'm not sure which one you
> guys prefer.
If we are using Javascript, why can't we probe the font size and do
something reasonable, e.g. make monospace larger only if it smaller than
proportional?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
