Reese wrote:
> On 07-Feb-10 20:58, David Laakso wrote:
>
>
>> For starters neither of the above is valid CSS.
>>
>
> Right, I got in a hurry when stripping out unrelated stuph.
> How about this?
>
> * {font-size: 100%; padding: 0; margin: 0;}
> body {font: 0.84em/1.333 Arial, sans-serif;}
>
> * {font-size: 84%; padding: 0; margin: 0;}
> body {font: 1em/1.33em Arial, sans-serif;}
>
> Reese
>
>
>
OK. I understand.
Three studies offered without prejudice.
<http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ca/cssd/test17/index.html>
Best,
~d
--
desktop
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/
mobile
http://chelseacreekstudio.mobi/
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/
