Keith Purtell wrote:
I'm using a carat character instead of an image of an arrow to point
upwards.
I suppose you mean the circumflex "^" (sometimes called the caret). I wonder
why you don't use an upwards arrow character instead. If you don't know how
to enter it in your editing environment, you can use the character reference
↑. The character is present in the Arial font, for example, so you
would not have any font issues with it. (I'm not saying it would be a better
character for a link that points backwards in browsing history. I'm just
saying that it resembles an arrow much more than the circumflex does.)
I was able to use vertical-align to bring it closer to the
text it accompanies, but for some reason I've lost the ability to
make the carat character larger. Here's a link....
http://www.keithpurtell.com/kthings/gifts-of-song.htm#player
and here's the CSS so far....
div.up {
font-size:10em;
font-weight:100 !important;
vertical-align:-.3em;
}
I don't see any div element with class="up" there, so the
Anyway, the idea of setting huge font size for something and then trying to
reduce its font weight to the minimum is rather... odd.
On the technical side, it fails, because it is very difficult to get a font
weight smaller than 400 (normal), such as 100, and in your Subject line you
are saying you want lighter than 100, which is impossible by definition.
There are several reasons why getting font-weight smaller than 400 is
difficult. First, you would need a font with such a weight. Years ago, I
thought browsers would produce different font weights algorithmically, but
later I have learned they don't - and understood why they shouldn't. And you
won't find light versions of commonly used fonts. Second, the browser would
need to recognize such a font as a light member of a font family, and this
seems to fail, for some reason or another (problems in the metadata in the
font, or problems in browsers, or both).
Playing with font-family: "Dejavu Sans" on a system that has such fonts
installed, I was unable to get extralight version thereof by using
font-weight: 100, on the four browsers I tested. When tried font-family:
"Dejavu Sans ExtraLight" (which is not the way we are supposed to use, but I
was desperate), IE and Chrome somehow managed to produce a _bolder_ version
of the text, Opera fell back to its default font, and Firefox actually used
the extralight font.
The morale is: if you try to get below normal font-weight, things get
abnormal or, in most cases, you just get normal font-weight.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [[email protected]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
