I suppose I was not as rigorous as I could have been ... you are right, it is far better to set font size by 'pt' rather than by 'px' for flexibility. Generally the font-size setting scheme should strive to be a base font (your "normal" text, specified in the body tag) with a 'pt' specification (or no setting if the default suits you) and then using percentages to set other font sizes relative to it. This allows the whole page to scale well with minimal effort.

If this sheet were to become the basis for a CSS Perlmonks site, it would need careful community scrutiny. But for specific "I don't like that" complaints (not saying yours is such a complaint... you have a very valid point) people will still have the opportunity to override things with their own style sheets.

Setting font sizes by pt OR px: BAD.

Setting font sizes by relative terms: GOOD.

People have set the font on their browser to be the size that they can read the normal text without having to adjust the size. This should never ever be redefined; that is, what makes up the 90% of the page text should be unstyled in terms of fonts and colors and use the user's options as specified by the browser. If you play with the font size, even by setting pt to be nice across platforms, you'll anger people that try to read sites at 1600x1200 with your fixed 8pt font that looks great at 800x600.

Any font changes should be specified in HTML tags using <BIG> or <SMALL> tags, or in CSS using font-size: smallest | smaller | small | normal | large | larger | largest. But, IMO, I only specify font sizes on footnotes and the like; any normal text remains at the default size.

</HTMLPuristRant>

-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Michael K. Neylon - mneylon-pm@masemware.com || "You've left the lens cap of your mind on again, Pinky" - The Brain
"I can see my house from here!"
It's not what you know, but knowing how to find it if you don't know that's important