tedd wrote:
At 5:42 AM -0700 9/9/10, Claude Needham wrote:
I have vague memories of doing this because the percentage handled a
glitch in one browser or another. Can't recall the details now. Is
this a case of age invented memories, or was there such a
consideration at one time that made the %
On 9/9/10 9:09 PM, Keith Purtell wrote:
I've been working on making my css flexible with different
browsers/screen resolutions/devices. The best information I've found so
far has been the Patrick Griffiths article at A List Apart. In applying
the suggestion that I use ems as often as possible, I
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Keith Purtell wrote:
I've been working on making my css flexible with different
browsers/screen resolutions/devices. The best information I've found so
far has been the Patrick Griffiths article at A List Apart. In applying
the suggestion that I use ems as often as possible,
I've been working on making my css flexible with different
browsers/screen resolutions/devices. The best information I've found so
far has been the Patrick Griffiths article at A List Apart. In applying
the suggestion that I use ems as often as possible, I've found instances
where only pixels would
On 2010/09/09 10:30 (GMT-0500) Lalena composed:
> Thank you for all the thoughtful responses about how to handle type
> sizing. I will get to work on it.
> I love this list!
Anyone remember we have a wiki, where the consensus answer
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/wiki/Internet_Explorer_Win_Bugs
At 5:42 AM -0700 9/9/10, Claude Needham wrote:
I have vague memories of doing this because the percentage handled a
glitch in one browser or another. Can't recall the details now. Is
this a case of age invented memories, or was there such a
consideration at one time that made the % in body a goo
Thank you for all the thoughtful responses about how to handle type
sizing. I will get to work on it.
I love this list!
Lalena
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List w
On Friday 10 September 2010 00:18, tedd wrote:
[snip]
> You can also use em's, such as:
>
> body
> {
> font-size: 1em;
> font-weight: normal;
> font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
> }
>
> and then base everything else upon that, such as:
That isn't a good idea. If you specify the bo
On 9/9/10 8:42 AM, Claude Needham wrote:
I have developed a practice of using 100% in the body and then using
em elsewhere to set sizes.
Such as:
body {
font-size: 100%; /* base my size on user default */
font-weight: normal;
font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
}
h1 {
Claude Needham wrote:
I have developed a practice of using 100% in the body and then using
em elsewhere to set sizes.
I have vague memories of doing this because the percentage handled a
glitch in one browser or another. Can't recall the details now. Is
this a case of age invented memories,
> I have vague memories of doing this because the percentage handled
> a glitch in one browser or another.
There was an IE bug handling sizing in ems that the 100% rule fixed, as I
recall. Perhaps this one with text-resizing?
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/EM-font-resizing
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:18 AM, tedd wrote:
>> You can set default font for the entire page in the BODY:
>>
>> body
>> {
>> font-size: 100%; /* don't use anything else for the default */
>> font-weight: normal;
>> font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
>> }
>
> You can also use em's, such
At 5:17 PM -0400 9/8/10, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Lalena wrote:
a {font-family:Times,serif;
font-size:medium;
color:#ff;
}
You can set default font for the entire page in the BODY:
body
{
font-size: 100%; /* don't use anything else for the default */
font-weig
13 matches
Mail list logo
