Tim: >> That'll just depend on what fonts you have available on each, and how >> your display is rendered. Craig White: > actually, that is not true any longer. It has become common for web > designers to identify OS and Browsers being used and to offer different > markup and stylesheets for the various browsers and OS's installed. > > Thus if you 'view source' you may see entirely different source > depending upon these and other variables. It's really an unnecessary convolution, just adding more chances of getting it wrong. There's too many variables for any one author to know about, and too many compromises to have to make. Author might think, Linux, he had Bitstream fonts. Umm, no, I don't... >> The moron side of that comes in two parts: (1) not knowing that it's >> stupid to do such a thing, and (2) not adjusting their own monitor for >> their own prefences instead of stuffing up the page. > what? Typical attitude of some authors: These fonts look too big, I'll write the page to use smaller fonts. There, that looks better... It never occured to them that their display was enlarging their fonts, and they should have set their display up properly, in the first place. Now I have to contend with sites with microfonts and normal fonts. One looks too small, because it is. The other looks too big, because I've compensated for the former. NB: I should have said "display" not "monitor" in my prior posting. Which means things like font rendering in their browser, not adjusting scan widths in monitors. -- [tim@bigblack ~]$ uname -ipr 2.6.22.9-91.fc7 i686 i386 Using FC 4, 5, 6 & 7, plus CentOS 5. Today, it's FC7. Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
