On 11/11/05, Felix Miata
No one has to create a userChrome.css file unless they want to manipulate the UI of a specific Mozilla.org application profile.
Perhaps I did not place this statement in proper context. M meant to describe a partial work-around to a SuSE system issue for a specific Mozilla.org applicatiion, Firefox.
Absolutely nothing you put in userChrome.css is ever transferred to user.js, the only file that you change when you make a change using about:config.
You are correct, of course. I erred by merely assuming that userChrome.css is handled like user.js. Thank you for correcting my foolishness. I do not wish to be the purveyor of false information and your educational effort is appreciated.
Hint: some of their sample code at the web site gives type sizes in millimeters ("mm"). You can safely switch those to point sizes ("pt").
3mm and 3pt aren't even close to the same thing, so following that advice could cause a pretty big mess. 3pt is 3/72" (0.04167"), while 3mm is 0.1181", nearly three times as much.
I phrased that poorly. What I meant was that people could use the more familiar point size conventions rather than the off-topic millimeter standard employed on the web site's example code. I did not intend to imply that 3-point type would be a useful setting. I had a 25-year-plus career as a professional typographer, beginning at age 10, before a career change in my 40's. In my considered opinion, type sizes should *never* be specified in anything but points because it encourages to the very type of misunderstanding that you describe. The point system of measurement for type size has an oral and written tradition spanning more than 500 years of western civilization. Notwithstanding the efforts of purists who advocate for unwaiverable reliance on the metric system, its usage in type size conventions, particularly in example code, leaves far too many people left wondering what the numbers signify. YMMV.
Is everything on your system seeing the same DPI? Is your DPI appropriately set?
I will have to check and get back to you later. I have just returned from an unexpected trip and need to catch up before I can work on my system again. If it provides any food for thought in the meantime, I have tried several Linux distributions and experienced the same system issue using about half of them. The other half, such as Kubuntu, had no such issue (although they had other issues, most commonly a failure to register my FAT32 partitions in fstab.). So it would appear that the system issue stems originally from a weakness in the SuSE 9.3 installation routine. I should stress, however, that I have seen the issue both present and absent in Linux distributions using the same kernel version. E.g., some Knoppix builds using the same kernel have the issue and some do not. Moreover, the problem is not cured by booting SuSE in repair mode. Based on the above factors and the fact that several people are experiencing the same issue, I suspect we might do better to approach the issue as a likely SuSE bug than to quest for work-arounds. Successful work-arounds may help isolate the cause, of course, but I strongly suspect that developer involvement in isolating and resolving this issue would be helpful. Best regards, Marbux