No, I wouldn't say it works worth **** in modern browsers... FF and IE in particular make a right mess of things. Crum is a mixed bag as is ChrOpera, though they do a FAR, FAR better than say Safari, since Apple developers have their own little delusions over what accessibility means and now that Google has told them where to stuff it with webkit, forking it off into blink, Safari is starting to age worse than "real" Opera is. Hence all the garbage in Safari that still takes vendor prefixes even IE doesn't need anymore.
Which is why most people who need accessibility will pay a grand for JAWS and consider Apple's attempts at things like screen readers to be a pathetic joke at best.
Oh, and PT is a really mixed bag. In FF thanks to it's Nyetscape legacy PT is the only measurement that obeys the system metric -- aka the OS setting. It ignores the OS setting for EM, and if you change the default size/em in FF, PT remains based on the OS setting.
Chrome and Safari just treats PT as pixels and has an 'arbitrary' scale thanks to Apple's having no clue what accessibility is or even how to print anything properly anymore (they don't even scale PT to the print DPI on a media="print" CSS anymore?!?) ... IE and 'real Opera' PT obeys the system metric OR the browser setting, and scales to what it's SUPPOSED to mean on print.
Of course, PT should be meaningless for screen as 1pt is SUPPOSED to equal 1/72th of an inch, hence 12pt line-height = 6 lines per inch == 60 lines per page on 11" with the 'stock' half inch margin of the old daisy wheel and dot-matrix printers. Since the OS DPI setting in relation to the screen is most always 100% fiction, points isn't a great choice.
Though back when we still had a lot of Nyetscape 4 users PT was the defacto choice if you cared about large font users as again, Opera, IE and Nyetscape obeyed the host OS setting for PT, while Nyetscape (and by extension Gecko/Mozilla) ignored the OS for the %/em default. It really wasn't until Opera 8, Safari and somewhat later Chrome came along that developers started abandoning PT...
For pixels; about the same time the whole "drawing a pretty picture and calling it web design" idiocy came into being, pissing away accessibility, page speed, and functionality for "ooh, shiny"; even if it ignores every accessibility recommendation and design guideline out of the W3C the past decade and a half.
Though the specifications and guidelines -- like the HTML spec and the WCAG are partly to blame for being endless legalese a normal person who didn't go to law school for six to eight years would never comprehend. The WCAG is a good idea, but it's just too damned wordy for normal developers to spend the time to understand. Much like the HTML specification which can't even use words like "empty" or "importance" in a manner "normal people" are willing to take the time to grasp.
The part of me that spent four years writing technical manuals for barcode scanners (some of which I also designed) recoils in horror at what the W3C calls a "specification" -- and it just gets worse and worse with every new version.