Both article are proving this.
http://www.kyleschaeffer.com/best-practices/css-font-size-em-vs-px-vs-pt-vs/
http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/relative/
I want to know SO users view?
+2
A:
The only differences between % and 100 * em (for setting font size) is that there are a few browser bugs relating to the use of em units (which can be worked around with an explicit body { font-size: 100%; } and then using em units thereafter.)
The kyleschaeffer article is, frankly, rubbish. It leaves out half the facts.
The maxdesign is decent, but shows its age. It was written in '03, and the bugs it talks about are in Opera 6 and Netscape 4 — both of which are obsolete.
David Dorward
2010-01-24 20:43:32
have u seen the conclousion at the end of first linked articles and second link has all the solution for problems but it's in % which is easy to use
metal-gear-solid
2010-01-24 20:47:17
Yes, I've seen the conclusion. My comments stand.
David Dorward
2010-01-24 20:51:23
bugs of Max-design article is still a bug with relative values see here http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1377449/problem-with-em-unit
metal-gear-solid
2010-01-24 20:55:54
There is no bug in that question, just an inadvisable combination of nested relative units with an absolute root unit (making the whole advantage of relative font units moot), and an unusual use of em for non-font-related measurements.
bobince
2010-01-24 21:47:14
Even that combination isn't causing the problem which led the question. That was because the author was trying to use relative units as if they were absolute units… which they aren't.
David Dorward
2010-01-25 06:38:04