Netscape X resources (was Re: [linux-elitists] O'Reilly and Winer: both sons of bitches)
Wed Sep 13 03:07:40 PDT 2000

On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 05:30:51PM -0700, Heather ( wrote:
> > >>>>> "kmself" == kmself  <> writes:
> > 
> >     kmself> Note that there doesn't appear to be any difference in
> >     kmself> sizeIncrement settings from about 5 to 0 -- the
> >     kmself> granularity is fairly coarse.

> > and a dpi setting of 96.  The odd page
> > still comes up uncomfortably small, so I just use the View / Text Size
> > menu as needed, which isn't very often.
> > 
> > There is also a setting under fonts that lets you force your own
> > fonts; I don't know if this locks the size as well as the family and
> > weight.
> Actually, I'd prefer it if it locked the family but not the size and 
> weight, so I could still see some variety in my web pages.

The problem is this:

HTML provides for seven steps in font size, from -2 to +3.  Default step
size is 20%.  Many websites now use some broken fscking title font for
body text, and scale it to -2.  For those viewers who don't have the
default font installed, but do have a graphical browser with scalable
fonts, the text is often presented at unreadable levels.  The default
range ends up being 50% - 200%.  Reducing the step size to 5% compresses
the font scaling range to 80% - 120% -- enough for readability, usually,
but also allowing for some visual sizing cues.  Unfortunatly, I find
this still ends up being hard to read on many sites.

While I don't mind *some* variability in font size, I also find scaled
body text frustrating to no end.  Given the choice of having visual
sizing cues and ensuring readable text, I'll pick the latter.  The
<font> tag simply needs to go.  It violates the content/structure
imperitive of HTML.  Fsck the "webmasters" who insist on it (or more
commonly, have it added by their composing tools without being aware of

I've looked into this previously, never quite found what I was looking
for.  The current crop at Freshmeat appears to be:


...anyone here have specific experience?

> What I do not generally see is the ability to declare the use of a 
> different font for Bold and Em/Italics purposes.

??  How do you mean?

> OB ELITIST: It's been years now with the Mozilla project, the licensing
> world has improved, but Netscape/mozilla still have not added back in
> the font control features I liked best in Mosaic.  It really ticks me 
> off!  And don't tell me to whine on their wishlist - I did that in great
> verbosity and basically, everyone things I'm talking about CSS.  Dorks.

Actually, what *did* Mosaic offer in this regard?

...and note that browser technology has been largely driven by lock-in
and proprietization battles (IE v. Netscape) and online vendor/content
fascist imperitives.  Junkbuster and content-modifying proxies (above)
are a backlash to this.

Karsten M. Self <>
 Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.          
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?   Debian GNU/Linux rocks!    K5:
GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list