Le 26 juil. 2014 à 04:13, Richard Wendrock Forum a
écrit :
> Does anyone know of an issue with FireFox not displaying the height of a div
> properly?
>
> The column on the right with the blue background appears correct in IE and
> Chrome. For some reason the column does not extend below the li
I usually go px on the body and % everywhere else. Then when doing media
queries, most the time all I have to adjust is the body px size and everything
else sizes with it correctly. There is always some that are a little off, so
then I go an adjust the % for just that one element for just that m
Yep this is what I have done for a long time.
The support for the REM unit is now pretty much universal in modern UAs, except
for bugs (one of which I found and reported on pre-IE11). And, in that case the
REM unit was only being ignored for font-size.
If you have to support ancient UAs than use
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Richard Wendrock Forum wrote:
Does anyone know of an issue with FireFox not displaying the height of a div
properly?
The column on the right with the blue background appears correct in IE and
Chrome. For some reason the column does not extend below the link.
http://advres.t
Richard Wendrock Forum wrote:
Does anyone know of an issue with FireFox not displaying the height of a div
properly?
The column on the right with the blue background appears correct in IE and
Chrome. For some reason the column does not extend below the link.
http://advres.thehomepagestore.com/co
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Richard Wendrock Forum <
fo...@thehomepagestore.com> wrote:
> Does anyone know of an issue with FireFox not displaying the height of a
> div
> properly?
>
> The column on the right with the blue background appears correct in IE and
> Chrome. For some reason the col
Does anyone know of an issue with FireFox not displaying the height of a div
properly?
The column on the right with the blue background appears correct in IE and
Chrome. For some reason the column does not extend below the link.
http://advres.thehomepagestore.com/consulting_unconventional_resource
This is a handle chart.
http://jerekdain.com/fontconversion.html
-Original Message-
From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org
[mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Crest Christopher
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 9:53 PM
To: Tom Livingston
Cc: Chris F.A. Johnson; CSS-Di
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson
wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Tom Livingston wrote:
>
>> Lack of rem support is easily taken care of with a fallback declaration
>> using px:
>>
>> Font-size:16px;
>> Font-size:1rem;
>
>
>Better still, using em or %:
>
> font-size: 100%;
> fo
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Tom Livingston wrote:
Lack of rem support is easily taken care of with a fallback declaration
using px:
Font-size:16px;
Font-size:1rem;
Better still, using em or %:
font-size: 100%;
font-size: 1rem;
This allows MOST browsers to use a relative font unit - honoring a
Lack of rem support is easily taken care of with a fallback declaration
using px:
Font-size:16px;
Font-size:1rem;
This allows MOST browsers to use a relative font unit - honoring a users
preference for font size - without the compounding issues (and any
other) of the em.
--
Tom Livingston |
On Jul 25, 2014, at 6:24 AM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
>
> Le 25 juil. 2014 à 20:06, Karl DeSaulniers a écrit :
>
>> Just made reference real quick to rems being the one based on the body only.
>
> No.
> rems are not – repeat not – based on the font-size on body! They are based on
> the f
Le 25 juil. 2014 à 20:06, Karl DeSaulniers a écrit :
> Just made reference real quick to rems being the one based on the body only.
No.
rems are not – repeat not – based on the font-size on body! They are based on
the font-size of the root element, as I note earlier in this thread. The root
e
On Jul 25, 2014, at 6:02 AM, "Mike & Martha" wrote:
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Karl DeSaulniers"
> To: "CSS-Discuss Discuss"
> Sent: 7/25/2014 4:59:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
>
>> Actually, I believe ems are based on the prior font-size of th
-- Original Message --
From: "Karl DeSaulniers"
To: "CSS-Discuss Discuss"
Sent: 7/25/2014 4:59:48 AM
Subject: Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
Actually, I believe ems are based on the prior font-size of the element
in which its contained. rems are based on body.
For example,
Actually, I believe ems are based on the prior font-size of the element in
which its contained. rems are based on body.
For example, If you have a div in the body with no font-size set and a span
inside that div with font-size set to 120% then it will be 120% of the body
font-size.
However, if t
2014-07-25 9:06, John wrote:
Is there a way to tell the browser…*any* browser: 1em = 16px and that’s that?
No.
Or is
body
{
font-size:100%;
}
—with the underlying hope and assumption that 100% is understood to mean 16px
and from there the leap that 1em equals the 16pixels — all we
17 matches
Mail list logo
