On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:22 PM, John wrote:
>
> On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:15 PM, Tom Livingston wrote:
>
>
>
> That style says that the s INSIDE .sample-summary are 30% wide.
>
> and the markup I see in Chrome dev tools is:
>
>
>
>
>
> [img]
>
> This is what is rendered...not the source. Maybe
On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:15 PM, Tom Livingston wrote:
>
>
> That style says that the s INSIDE .sample-summary are 30% wide.
>
> and the markup I see in Chrome dev tools is:
>
>
>
>
>
> [img]
>
> This is what is rendered...not the source. Maybe a miss-placed close
> tag somewhere?
No…I ha
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:11 PM, John wrote:
>
> On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:03 PM, Tom Livingston wrote:
>
>> .sample-summary is 100% width, and is holding the images down. In
>> Chrome dev tools, I was able to add a style to .sample-summary as so:
>>
>> width: 30%; Float:left;
>>
>> and to the child
On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:03 PM, Tom Livingston wrote:
> .sample-summary is 100% width, and is holding the images down. In
> Chrome dev tools, I was able to add a style to .sample-summary as so:
>
> width: 30%; Float:left;
>
> and to the child s, width: 100%;
>
> The images then came up to the t
.sample-summary is 100% width, and is holding the images down. In
Chrome dev tools, I was able to add a style to .sample-summary as so:
width: 30%; Float:left;
and to the child s, width: 100%;
The images then came up to the top of the green div.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:55 PM, John wrote:
On Oct 20, 2014, at 5:55 PM, John wrote:
> Here is with that with a red line around it..
>
> the container div which I thought was containing text (left) and picture
> (meant to be to the right) does span 100% but that image isn’t havin’ it..
>
> John
This is the link I failed to include:
On Oct 20, 2014, at 5:50 PM, Tom Livingston wrote:
> Actually, in Chrome dev tools, i see .sample-summary div wrapping only
> the two little paragraphs. And the wrapping the imgs is 100%
> width;
Here is with that with a red line around it..
the container div which I thought was containing t
Actually, in Chrome dev tools, i see .sample-summary div wrapping only
the two little paragraphs. And the wrapping the imgs is 100%
width;
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:43 PM, John wrote:
> at this link http://www.coffeeonmars.com/category/illustration/, the image
> of the carburetors is being pus
at this link http://www.coffeeonmars.com/category/illustration/, the image of
the carburetors is being pushed downward; my goal is to have it top-aligned
with the two little paragraphs. both that text and that picture are contained
in the same container div which has overflow:hidden; So I’m n
Chris!
GREAT! It works!
I have updated on
http://www.teigfam.net/oyvind/home/technology/061-wordpress/#academic_style_reference_list
I also have updated on my longest
list:http://www.teigfam.net/oyvind/home/technology/072-pike-sutter-concurrency-vs-concurrency/#References
THANK YOU! But I ce
On 10/20/14, 2:16 AM, MiB wrote:
okt 20 2014 11:08 MiB :
Grids are not hocus locus.
I’m giving this response a "Like" :)
--
Cordially,
David
__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/
On Monday, October 20, 2014, David Hucklesby wrote:
> On 10/20/14, 2:16 AM, MiB wrote:
>
>>
>> okt 20 2014 11:08 MiB :
>>
>> Grids are not hocus locus.
>>>
>>
>>
> I’m giving this response a "Like" :)
Magic plague ;-)
--
Tom Livingston | Senior Front-End Developer | Media Logic |
ph: 518
This doesn't appear to be related to CSS. I would look first to the CMS
WYSIWYG as it appears to be stripping the href from the first tag (from
what I see, this is consistent although your question states "some times").
If you're using a WYSIWYG, try writing some markup that should work and
past
okt 20 2014 12:57 MiB :
> If it’s 978 px, the element width will be based on that and if it’s 500px or
> 1200px it will be base on those numbers.
I should have used plural ”widths” here, as the width property is of course
only a part of the width an element will take up.
_
okt 20 2014 13:02 Tom Livingston :
> Even given that, mixing units is going to cause issues, especially for those
> just learning. I recommend using percentage for all, as in David L's example.
That’s a good start, but percentage values does have to be controlled to not
yield silly results in
On Monday, October 20, 2014, Tom Livingston wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, October 20, 2014, MiB > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> okt 20 2014 12:20 Philip Taylor :
>>
>> > On the contrary, I want to challenge your assertion that "you can
>> translate from px sizing to percentages" for all but the most trivial of
>>
okt 20 2014 12:56 Philip Taylor :
> Make context explicit as a part of your assertions, don't rely on others
> inferring it. Study the pragmatics of discourse.
Yes Philip, I’ll assume you don’t read all relevant posts in the thread you’re
posting in, in the future.
___
okt 20 2014 12:32 Tom Livingston :
> I have to agree with Philip here. If you don't know context you can use the
> formula you referenced. That, I believe, is his point. Viewport width is not
> something you will know.
Agree on the obvious, you mean? In the given example, the context was know
MiB wrote:
Consider context, not only when translating pixel-expressed designs, but also
when reading this list.
Make context explicit as a part of your assertions, don't rely on others
inferring it. Study the pragmatics of discourse.
Philip Taylor
__
On Monday, October 20, 2014, MiB wrote:
>
>
> okt 20 2014 12:20 Philip Taylor >:
>
> > On the contrary, I want to challenge your assertion that "you can
> translate from px sizing to percentages" for all but the most trivial of
> cases. If /everything/ was originally expressed in pixels, then of
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:39 AM, David Laakso wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Crest Christopher
> wrote:
>
>> I have a css grid question..[trimmed]
>> Thanks
>> Christopher
>
> Christopher,
>
> This does not answer your specific questions. It is simply a coded
> example of a three colu
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Crest Christopher
wrote:
> I have a css grid question..[trimmed]
> Thanks
> Christopher
Christopher,
This does not answer your specific questions. It is simply a coded
example of a three column responsive grid layout. Variations of
column widths and their respe
Sorry, that should read "If you don't know context you CAN'T use the
formula..."
Another victim of auto correct...
On Monday, October 20, 2014, Tom Livingston wrote:
> I have to agree with Philip here. If you don't know context you can use
> the formula you referenced. That, I believe, is his p
I have to agree with Philip here. If you don't know context you can use the
formula you referenced. That, I believe, is his point. Viewport width is
not something you will know.
If, for example, you know your content will be a max-width of 960px, then
you can work off of that in the formula.
Also
okt 20 2014 12:20 Philip Taylor :
> On the contrary, I want to challenge your assertion that "you can translate
> from px sizing to percentages" for all but the most trivial of cases. If
> /everything/ was originally expressed in pixels, then of course you can
> translate from px sizing to p
MiB wrote:
You clearly [...] want to waste my time and the readers of this email
discussion list.
On the contrary, I want to challenge your assertion that "you can
translate from px sizing to percentages" for all but the most trivial of
cases. If /everything/ was originally expressed in p
okt 20 2014 11:25 Philip Taylor :
>
> MiB wrote:
>
>> What part of ”will explain it all” did you not like?
>
> The part where you consistently avoid my question.
So you admit being a troll? You’re not here to learn and share knowledge, like
the a majority of the other members?
I answered
MiB wrote:
What part of ”will explain it all” did you not like?
The part where you consistently avoid my question.
Philip Taylor
__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
okt 20 2014 11:17 Philip Taylor :
> But when your context is 100% and your target is 16px (or any other number of
> px), what then ?
I refuse to answer any more questions like this one form you until you have
read the article I linked to. What part of ”will explain it all” did you not
like?
okt 20 2014 01:14 Crest Christopher :
> You can use pixels instead of percentages for a fluid layout ?
You can use pixels for the parts of the grid you want to be inflexible, like
gutters. This will break relative relationships so must be handled with care.
___
MiB wrote:
Unfortunately I must do work now, but the (classic) basic context-aware formula
is target ÷ context = result.
But when your context is 100% and your target is 16px (or any other
number of px), what then ?
Philip Taylor
__
okt 20 2014 11:08 MiB :
> Grids are not hocus locus.
Grids are not hocus pocus either. OS X’s canning ability to invisibly
(erroneously) correct me is very irritating. Probably solveable, but no time. :P
__
css-discuss [css-
okt 20 2014 10:49 Philip Taylor :
> MiB wrote:
>
>> you can translate from px sizing to percentages
>> I’ll answer specific questions, not your erroneous assumptions.
>
> Fine, here's a specific question : "How would you translate from 16px to a
> percentage” ?
Unfortunately I must do work n
okt 20 2014 10:49 Philip Taylor :
> MiB wrote:
>
>> you can translate from px sizing to percentages
>> I’ll answer specific questions, not your erroneous assumptions.
>
> Fine, here's a specific question : "How would you translate from 16px to a
> percentage” ?
Give the context. Percentages
MiB wrote:
you can translate from px sizing to percentages
I’ll answer specific questions, not your erroneous assumptions.
Fine, here's a specific question : "How would you translate from 16px
to a percentage" ?
Philip Taylor
__
okt 20 2014 09:12 Philip Taylor :
> MiB wrote:
>
>> That’s not what I said. Try again.
>
> You said "you can translate from px sizing to percentages."
> I pointed out that, in general, you cannot. I am still waiting
> for you to demonstrate how you can.
And I won’t since what I referred to is
MiB wrote:
That’s not what I said. Try again.
You said "you can translate from px sizing to percentages."
I pointed out that, in general, you cannot. I am still waiting
for you to demonstrate how you can.
Philip Taylor
__
Karl DeSaulniers wrote:
By calculating what size your website is naturally without responsiveness?
100% of window width. But since you cannot know what the window width
is, you are no closer to being able to map from the number of px to a
percentage, are you ?
Philip Taylor
38 matches
Mail list logo
