View Single Post
Old 01-24-2013, 11:20 AM   #6
Jellby
frumious Bandersnatch
Jellby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jellby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jellby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jellby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jellby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jellby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jellby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jellby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jellby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jellby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Jellby ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Jellby's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,146
Karma: 4792399
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Spaniard in Sweden
Device: Cybook Orizon, Kobo Aura
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf View Post
The term larger is meaningless. It's x-small, small, large, x-large or xx-large.
No, it isn't:

A <relative-size> keyword is interpreted relative to the table of font sizes and the font size of the parent element. Possible values are: [ larger | smaller ]. For example, if the parent element has a font size of 'medium', a value of 'larger' will make the font size of the current element be 'large'. If the parent element's size is not close to a table entry, the UA is free to interpolate between table entries or round off to the closest one. The UA may have to extrapolate table values if the numerical value goes beyond the keywords.

But It's better to give an explicit relative size, in percent or em.
Jellby is offline   Reply With Quote