About this subject and books reading, I think it is worth to take a look at
least at the chapter 13 of Designing with Web Standards
from Jeffrey Zeldman
http://www.amazon.com/Designing-Web-Standards-Jeffrey-Zeldman/dp/0735712018/ref=ed_oe_p/105-6697130-6475607
(I read only the 1st and french edition). This chapter is only 30 pages but
there are some interesting tips for this kind of
problems. It speaks about pixels, em, etc.
Jacques
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Crum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <dev@ofbiz.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: maincss.css question
> Thanks for the reminder Daniel! I was going to get to that next. If you try
> out
> the file I attached, you'll see there are still a few small issues I need to
> work out. So, it's a work in progress.
>
>
> Daniel Kunkel wrote:
>
> > Hi Adrian
> >
> > This is great, but I think Chris Howe had a great idea a little while
> > back when he talked about defining text in em so browsers can adjust the
> > font size.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> > -----
> >
> > This is a vague recollection of things read/done on
> > css. Instead of setting the font size in pixels, you
> > "should" use em units. The most common approach is
> > the following:
> >
> > BODY {
> > font-size: 62.5%;
> > }
> >
> > This makes 16px = 10px and so now:
> > 0.8 em = 8 px
> > 1 em = 10px
> > 1.2 em = 12 px
> > 1.4 em = 14 px
> >
> > and so forth. em instead of pixels is used because
> > IE/Win doesn't allow the user to resize text that is
> > set in px. This may or may not have been
> > fixed/changed in IE7, but it's a much easier
> > convention to apply consistently than is pixels.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> > On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 14:17 -0800, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >
> >>I've spent the last two days consolidating the two main css files and
> >>cleaning
> >>up the target file. There were a lot of duplicate and unnecessary
> >>assignments. I
> >>also found font sizes expressed in points AND pixels, so I changed them all
> >>to
> >>pixels. I also changed color names to color values - so that a simple global
> >>replacement of color values will change the look of the site.
> >>
> >>So far, the new maincss.css file renders almost exactly the same. The only
> >>difference seems to be in INPUT box widths.
> >>
> >>I have attached what I've done so far - if you'd like to take a look at it.
> >>
> >>Thanks for the book recommendation, btw. I'll definitely pick up a book or
> >>two.
> >>So far I've been able to answer all of my questions with online CSS
> >>references.
> >>
> >>
> >>David E. Jones wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Adrian,
> >>>
> >>>I see, no problem. Yeah, it was a project started and never finished!
> >>>
> >>>You'll probably also notice that there is still some table-based
> >>>formatting on the productdetail page that is a bit evil (well, and
> >>>ugly!) and needs to be converted to a CSS-based layout like much of the
> >>>other stuff was.
> >>>
> >>>-David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Jan 12, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>David,
> >>>>
> >>>>Thanks for the reply! I understand completely what the ID attribute
> >>>>is for. I was questioning why it was done differently than the rest
> >>>>of the file.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>David E. Jones wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>This was part of the experimentation with the Zen CSS Garden way of
> >>>>>doing CSS. Using id attributes to mark regions and styling
> >>>>>implicitly is the way we want to go in the future. If you're
> >>>>>planning on working on CSS stuff and you haven't read through The
> >>>>>Zen of CSS Design, I highly recommend it. Really cool stuff. There
> >>>>>is a link to the book on the Docs & Books page on ofbiz.apache.org.
> >>>>>-David
> >>>>>On Jan 12, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>In the maincss.css file, Just below the comment
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>/* ===== Product Detail Styles ===== */
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>are six css classes defined using IDs instead of class names. Is
> >>>>>>there a reason for that?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
