> From: david <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Jason Campbell wrote:
>
> > I am trying to establish a foundation for an em based
> layout and I am
> > seeing some discrepancies between Firefox 2 and Safari
> 3.1.2 on the
> > mac that I had not noticed before.
> > My example file I am referencing is available at
> http://www.jasoncampbell.com/CSS
>
> Hmm, all I see there is a lovely background - vertical red
> bar, then
> wide vertical pinkish bars separated by narrower white
> bars, finishing
> with a final vertical red bar.
>
> > I have a simple setup here in this example. I have set
> the font-size
> > for the body of my document to 62.5% my understanding
> is that by doing
> > this I am,
>
> Creating unreadable mousetype for many people ...
Jason didn't really mention anything about text in his original post; I'm
assuming this is a more theoretical question than a 'how do I fix this site'
one.
> > in effect, setting a base font size of roughly ten
> pixels.
> > I then have a content div on the page with a width set
> to 98em which I
> > am hoping in this case equates to a 980px wide area.
> In this div I
> > have a bg image of 980px set.
> >
> > When I view the page in Firefox 2 everything is
> wonderful, full image,
> > etcetera. However in Safari 3.1.2 to see the full bg
> image I have to
> > increase the base font-size to 71.5%
> >
> > Is this right? I thought this was something that
> worked in both of
> > these browsers, any insight is appreciated.
According to my understanding of the spec, you are totally correct - 98em *
10px should result in a width of 980px. However, have you determined that the
default font-size in Safari (including your local configuration) is actually
16px? If you're relying on that value, I'd say the only way to achieve this
display is by explicitly setting it, rather than assuming that 62.5% of the
default will ALWAYS be 10px.
> Don't know what the problem is, but I'm using
> Firefox 2.0.0.14 on Linux
> here and don't see any text at all. Tidy reports that
> your doctype is
> malformed, and there's no next in the document
> whatsoever ...
Strange - the w3 validator passes it fine. Maybe it's been updated since this
post.
______________________________________________________________________
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/
