Menu
I’m getting a bit frustrated with this whole Font-weight property. I read on websites that it can accept values like 100-900, bold, bolder, normal, and lighter. I also see that compatible with NN 4.0 and IE 4.0 (Im’ running IE 5.5 and Mozilla 1.2). If this is true, then please take a look at this page:
[url]www.wblondon.com/telconstar99/test.html
For me, it looks like 100-500, Normal, and Lighter are all the same. It also looks like 700-900, Bold, and Bolder are also the same. The value of 600 looks slightly less bold.
Why doesn’t the property work as it was supposed to?
Thank you for your help.
[i]Originally posted by telconstar99 [/i]
I read on websites that ... ... compatible with NN 4.0 and IE 4.0 (Im' running IE 5.5 and Mozilla 1.2). [/QUOTE]
[i]Originally posted by gil davis [/i]
[B]Could it be an OS limitation, rather than a "bug in the browser"? When the browser "requests" a font, the OS supplies the closest thing it has, comparing height and weight, trying to satisfy the request.
For example, my PC has 4 different weights for the Arial font - black, bold, narrow, and "standard". [/B][/QUOTE]
<a href="sdf.cgi?home" class="link-n">
<div class="div-menu-item2">Home</div>
</a>[i]Originally posted by King Pellinore [/i]
Now, the questions.
1. Validator says that I can't have a <div> inside an <a>, such as in the code:, though, like you said, I did specify display: block; in styles (does the parser account for CSS?). Am I allowed to put a <div> inside an <a>?<a href="sdf.cgi?home" class="link-n">
<div class="div-menu-item2">Home</div>
</a>
[/QUOTE]
Fonts (the font data) typically have one or more properties whose values are names that are descriptive of the "weight" of a font. There is no accepted, universal meaning to these weight names. Their primary role is to distinguish faces of differing darkness within a single font family. Usage across font families is quite variant; for example a font that you might think of as being bold might be described as being Regular, Roman, Book, Medium, Semi- or DemiBold, Bold, or Black, depending on how black the "normal" face of the font is within the design. Because there is no standard usage of names, the weight property values in CSS1 are given on a numerical scale in which the value '400' (or 'normal') corresponds to the "normal" text face for that family. The weight name associated with that face will typically be Book, Regular, Roman, Normal or sometimes Medium.
The association of other weights within a family to the numerical weight values is intended only to preserve the ordering of darkness within that family. However, the following heuristics tell how the assignment is done in typical cases:
If the font family already uses a numerical scale with nine values (like e.g. OpenType does), the font weights should be mapped directly.
If there is both a face labeled Medium and one labeled Book, Regular, Roman or Normal, then the Medium is normally assigned to the '500'.
The font labeled "Bold" will often correspond to the weight value '700'.
If there are fewer then 9 weights in the family, the default algorithm for filling the "holes" is as follows. If '500' is unassigned, it will be assigned the same font as '400'. If any of the values '600', '700', '800' or '900' remains unassigned, they are assigned to the same face as the next darker assigned keyword, if any, or the next lighter one otherwise. If any of '300', '200' or '100' remains unassigned, it is assigned to the next lighter assigned keyword, if any, or the next darker otherwise.[/quote]
[i]Originally posted by telconstar99 [/i]IMHO, no (obviously). ?
[B]Aren't there better browsers out there? [/B][/QUOTE]
[i]Originally posted by gil davis [/i]
[B]You have to remember that NS 4 was cutting edge Dynamic HTML when it was first released in 1994. It pre-dates IE 4 and the CSS1 recommendations (1996).
[/B][/QUOTE]
[i]Originally posted by meow [/i]
Funny how they managed to map some of their JSSS to CSS before CSS was released. ?
Netscape 4 was released 1997. [/QUOTE]
0.1.9 — BETA 5.21