New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Safari font size discrete steps
¿Por que is Safari doing these discrete steps (top part of image) in font-size when Firefox is not (lower part of image)?
The way Safari does it is winding me up to the n'th degree.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Screen shot 2010-10-24 at 01.21.36.jpg | 62.34 KB |
User login
Support our Sponsors
23 Oct 2010 — 5:15pm
It seems to be rounding to the nearest integer.
Why? Maybe performance.
hhp
23 Oct 2010 — 5:31pm
Wouldn't surprise me. Safari has a pretty strict performance over features strategy.
24 Oct 2010 — 2:53am
Safari is doing it right, there is no such thing as “half a pixel”.
24 Oct 2010 — 3:36am
In the CSS spec there are half pixels.
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units
http://webkit.org/blog/57/css-units/
24 Oct 2010 — 4:08am
Thanks for the links, Jens. Very informative.
In my opinion the definition of “pixel” in the CSS spec is fundamentally wrong. But what do I know.
24 Oct 2010 — 4:50am
> Safari is doing it right, there is no such thing as “half a pixel”.
Hmmm, closet Apple-berserker talk? There most certainly are fractional pixels, on many levels. Especially on an OS that worships wysiwyg!
hhp
24 Oct 2010 — 4:54am
Looks like the genius of Håkon Lie is behind this one too – see his reply to the question about “Definition of pixel” here.
Seriously, if he knew what he was doing we wouldn’t be in such a mess right now.
24 Oct 2010 — 5:01am
WYSIWYG is the root of all font rendering evil.
I propose WYSIATI instead — What You See Is All There Is.
24 Oct 2010 — 5:08am
> Safari has a pretty strict performance over features strategy.
Well then, for max performance just snap to powers of 2!
Who really needs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 point anyway?
I'm sure the right kind of press conference can spin those sizes into oblivion.
> WYSIWYG is the root of all font rendering evil.
That's a primo cushy bandwagon now.
hhp
24 Oct 2010 — 9:20am
"Safari is doing it right, there is no such thing as “half a pixel”."
Non-sequitur, and I just showed you Firefox doing it.
24 Oct 2010 — 9:23am
and I just showed you Firefox doing it.
How dare you!
24 Oct 2010 — 9:29am
How dare you!
Brass balls.
25 Oct 2010 — 10:48am
Probably Safari rounds values from the start to avoid inconsistencies caused by rounding later, like the so-called Firefox leading bug?