Phoebe Taylor wrote:
> re: http://www.cgraytaylor.net/
>
>
>>
>>
>
> In general, using the shorthand in my code has been a good thing, but
> seems to be conditional too. Like trying to put bold in the { font:
> 125% #000 bold } seems to make the text less bold than it is if it is
> on a tag line by itself, like { font-style: bold; } I'm not sure
> why this is. Where I wished it to be more bold, I put it in a
> separate tag.
>
The above string would not be valid.
In shorthand font property, the individual properties must be in a
certain order.
For example:
p {font: bold 100% Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;}
see:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#propdef-font>
Regarding font-weight, see:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#propdef-font-weight>
>
>
>> Stating a different color on the link state :hover will enable it to
>> "light-up" when users hover the nav.
> Actually, the font does bold
> and go from gray to black when hoovered over so it does have some
> difference. I chose to leave the active link like the hoover,
> however.
>
Ah, now I see it (after you pointed it out and I tried it 3 times). I
am only suggesting you strengthen the difference a little on hover. You
/do/ have a difference. It is extremely subtle, /some/ might say, too
subtle.
Regards,
~dL
--
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
