Glad to help!
Chris Rockwell
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:00 PM, John wrote:
>
> On Sep 18, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Chris Rockwell
> wrote:
>
> > Check out the "Computed" tab in Chrome Dev tools - it shows that
> 47.87234%
> > is equal to 430.844 pixels which, without actually doing the math, makes
> >
On Sep 18, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Chris Rockwell wrote:
> Check out the "Computed" tab in Chrome Dev tools - it shows that 47.87234%
> is equal to 430.844 pixels which, without actually doing the math, makes
> sense because your container is 900px wide. I'm pretty sure you're going
> to run into pix
Check out the "Computed" tab in Chrome Dev tools - it shows that 47.87234%
is equal to 430.844 pixels which, without actually doing the math, makes
sense because your container is 900px wide. I'm pretty sure you're going
to run into pixel rounding issues with percentages like that though (
http://
Jukka K. Korpela wrote on 2014-09-18 09:06 (GMT+0300):
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> When you set a width in rem, the ratio between base font size and the
>> container's design width remains constant no matter how many layers deep that
>> container lives, and no matter what the base font size is.
> No
http://www.coffeeonmars.com/170_su/client/portfolio/
At this link, I have 3 thumbnails which display horizontally and are evenly
distributed, and respect the 1.25em right and left padding of their parent.
Using good ol’ pen and paper, I calced the total width of the elements, the
padding of the
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:53 AM, John wrote:
>
> On Sep 18, 2014, at 5:47 AM, Tom Livingston wrote:
>
>> I haven't heard any arguments about not using rem for anything but
>> font-size until this thread. I've only heard that it's no different
>> than using em, except for the lack of the compound
On Sep 18, 2014, at 5:47 AM, Tom Livingston wrote:
> I haven't heard any arguments about not using rem for anything but
> font-size until this thread. I've only heard that it's no different
> than using em, except for the lack of the compounding issue associated
> with em. And that's a really go
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
>
> Le 18 sept. 2014 à 22:28, Tom Livingston a écrit :
>
>> Can you add the image as base64 in the content: "": rule?
>
> How would that help in making the image a link?
>
>
I guess I was adding this to my comment of adding an around
Le 18 sept. 2014 à 22:28, Tom Livingston a écrit :
> Can you add the image as base64 in the content: "": rule?
How would that help in making the image a link?
As far as I understand, the OP has this markup:
foo bar baz and more text
And want to add an image which is at the same time a link (li
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Tom Livingston wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Chris Rockwell
> wrote:
>> I assume you're adding this as a background-image, is that correct?
>> Something like:
>> div:after {
>> content: " ";
>> background-image: url('');
>> }
>>
>> You can't add t
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Chris Rockwell wrote:
> I assume you're adding this as a background-image, is that correct?
> Something like:
> div:after {
> content: " ";
> background-image: url('');
> }
>
> You can't add tags to an :after. If this is something you *need* to link
> to, I wo
I assume you're adding this as a background-image, is that correct?
Something like:
div:after {
content: " ";
background-image: url('');
}
You can't add tags to an :after. If this is something you *need* to link
to, I would suggest adding it to the markup proper (wp template) as that is
where
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Dave Solko wrote:
> Is it possible to add a link to the :after?
>
> I'm adding an image via :after, and I want to make it clickable. Is this
> possible?
>
> Using WP, and it's not possible to add the image without hacking the
> template. However, it's easy to ad
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:49 PM, John wrote:
>
> On Sep 16, 2014, at 7:35 PM, Eric wrote:
>
>> Did you read on this list that the REM unit is only for type? - It's a
>> relative unit like any other relative unit. I use it for everything except
>> element widths (they get %s) and line-height tha
The is display none. Not the whole .
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Crest Christopher
wrote:
> The image is suppose to be seen, but it's not seen because the display is
> set to none, but it's in a H1 so it works for SEO, but the image doesn't
> display, hrm ?
>
>
> Karl DeSaulniers wrote:
>>
15 matches
Mail list logo
