|
|
Posted by dorayme on 11/17/06 20:38
In article <Xns987E52E52CBB6KeithYammer@212.23.3.119>,
K A Nuttall <keith@yammer.coedotyoukay.invalid> wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> > Here's a thread from 2004, discussing this same subject once
> > again.
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/macromedia.dreamweaver/browse_frm/t
> > hread/3ab1dd1b8a3e05b2/1fe477e46feec3b3?tvc=1&q=alt.html+why+not+us
> > e+font+size+keywords#1fe477e46feec3b3>
>
> Oh god, I need to lie down. Unfortunately, that thread is a bit like
> this one: full of conflicting opinions, thinly veiled insults,
> dogmatism, and very little hard fact - and eleven pages of it, in
> Google Groups.
>
> I've adopted this 100% idea, for a test period. Some sources say to use
> it on <html>, some say <body>, and nowhere can I find an in-depth
> analysis of its effects on different browsers, compared to the use of
> size names, other than using it to counteract the effects of the IE em
> bug. I'll have to find time to experiment with this.
Welcome to newsgroups. Look, the truth is likely to be that there
are so many browsers, so many platforms, so many variables that
there is no bible on the matter. If you have someone with good
sense - eg. the resident ascetic, old B - saying to set the body
to 100%, just do it. In addition, you have an argument, namely it
avoids a bug in IE. There are other arguments. You need to think
through them and simply adopt a policy.
--
dorayme
[Back to original message]
|