- The issue applies to both strong and b tags.
- Of the "web fonts," it only seems to affect Arial.
- Bolding doesn't stack if the style is on the element itself -- only if it's on an ancestor element.
- Doctype doesn't appear to matter.
font-weight issue
12 posts
• Page 1 of 1
I'm running 4.0b3 under Windows 7, and have stumbled across a bug. After the latest update to Gmail, for some reason the "Archive" button now consists of a b tag nested inside a div that has the css property font-weight: bold. Ordinarily this redundancy wouldn't cause a problem, but in this case the text is being bolded twice. I played around in Firebug (on this and other pages) and discovered the following:
"What you embrace is what you become." - Six Feet Deep
![]() Moving to Builds...
Ancient Amateur Astronomer
Win-7-HP/IntelĀ® DualCore-2.0GHz/500G HDD/4 Gig Ram/550Watt PSU/350WattUPS/Firefox-20.0-62.0-70.0/T-bird-2.0.0.24/SnagIt-v10.0.1/MWP-7.12. (Always choose the "Custom" Install.) Personally, I think that's the way it should work. What other reason would you want to put a bold style in the middle of another bold style.
If you think it's a bug, feel free to file one https://bugzilla.mozilla.org There have always been ghosts in the machine... random segments of code that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of free will, creativity, and even the nature of what we might call the soul...
Is there a font-size increase somewhere? Some fonts appear to go bold in larger sizes. Maybe I am missing something here, but I didn't think there was such a thing as a double-bold font.
Tip of the day: If it has "toolbar" in the name, it's crap.
What my avatar is about: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/sea-fox/ There are varying levels of boldness (wight), though AFAIK it has to be supported by the font or synthetically computed
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#font-boldness So, to me, it makes sense that stacking weighting elements would relatively adjust the font weight. There have always been ghosts in the machine... random segments of code that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of free will, creativity, and even the nature of what we might call the soul...
Yes, there are the different numerical weights, but "bold" is a specific font-weight, typically weight 700. If you want something relatively more bold, you should use "bolder". The same is true for the difference between font-size "large" and "larger", one is specific and one is relative:
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/fonts.html#font-boldness https://developer.mozilla.org/en/CSS/font-weight Redundancy is pretty common in style sheets. That looks like a bug to me. Tip of the day: If it has "toolbar" in the name, it's crap.
What my avatar is about: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/sea-fox/ Yes, I'm afraid it's clearly a font-weight issue (unrelated to font-size), out of keeping with normal style behavior, and would make the lives of web developers like myself more frustrating if left unfixed. I will indeed file a bug if nobody else has yet.
"What you embrace is what you become." - Six Feet Deep
This is an issue with d2d/dw that won't be fixed. I tried very hard but the sites need to change their code to be correct.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=548975 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550128 Read both bugs from start to finish. From bug 548975:
Aha, so it's caused by the B markup being equivalent to "bolder". Interestingly, that breaks HTML 4.1 which considers B to be "bold": http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/gr ... l#h-15.2.1 HTML 5 may represent a change in that, (although this document does not specify it): http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#changed-elements Tip of the day: If it has "toolbar" in the name, it's crap.
What my avatar is about: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/sea-fox/
Interesting indeed. The same assumption is even more apparent in the 3.2 reference spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32-19970114#font-style In consideration of this -- not to mention the common understanding of <b> as shorthand for "bold" (which I know the W3C is trying to get away from with HTML5, but is nevertheless etymologically accurate) -- I wonder why Firefox devs decided to make it equivalent to "bolder" in the first place. IE appears to default font-weight to "bold" for those elements, but I see that Chrome also uses "bolder." Hrm. "What you embrace is what you become." - Six Feet Deep
It could be up to interpretation of the HTML 5 spec, that B should be used to *always* offset the specified text from the surrounding text, and not just to be shorthand for BOLD. So if you markup a section of a header with B, that section will stand out even if the entire header is already in BOLD. It makes sense, but it's definitely a redefinition of what B means.
Tip of the day: If it has "toolbar" in the name, it's crap.
What my avatar is about: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/sea-fox/ If the behavior of elements goes against the W3C spec, you can probably build a better case for having the behavior changed. And I don't recall that argument being used in either of those bugs.
There have always been ghosts in the machine... random segments of code that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of free will, creativity, and even the nature of what we might call the soul...
12 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests |
![]() |