On 31 August 2010 18:37, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> 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?
Hmm.. I don't know if the rendered font size is exposed to the DOM.
If someone with some ECMAScript-fu knows how, we could do that.
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
