“ Additionally, IE renders larger text smaller than other browsers and the proposed solution. Firefox is much closer to the proposed solution, but its {{smaller}} is slightly smaller than proposed. In chrome, the current and proposed sizes are the same (to my eye, at least) . I think it's pretty well known that editors of Wikimedia projects tend to use IE much less than do readers of Wikimedia projects. Hence my concern that editors who use Firefox and Chrome (like me!) are setting fonts to what "looks good" to them, without checking what it looks like for others (especially IE) . ”
Summary
“Scriptorium/Archives/2010-12”, is a work by . It explores elements such as Wikisource, portals and Nupedia.
Quotes from Scriptorium/Archives/2010-12 ()
“ Personally, I find DDC the most intuitive (I'm also British) but LLC is simpler and, while I find the category selection a bit odd, it is fairly straight forward. There is a precedent for expanding LLC for local use; The National Library of Medicine classification system (NLM) does so. The 19th century DDC system also has gaps that can be used for local adaptation, which will be necessary for computing and other subjects. In the latter case, however, there is a problem that new classification would not match the modern DDC equivalents (and if they do, then it raises copyright problems) . ”
“ If so, might a category-based system rather that a page-based system be preferable for ease of maintenance? (This is slightly off topic, I'll admit, but it's something that should be considered before creating large numbers of portals. The cons of a category-based system are that you can't do lists e.g. Wikisource:Astronomy, and you can't monitor changes, but they are a lot easier to add/remove works from.) ”
