Hi list
This new page has two background images, one in the body and one (a
logo) in a div called #outerwall (ie the wrapper).
http://www.st-alfege.org/friends-of-the-park/
Chrome seems to compute the position of the logo differently from
other browsers and puts it about 90 pixels too far to
It was Chrome on a Mac - will ask about the version/OS and report back.
Rachel
At 17:55 02/06/2010, Jack Timmons wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Rachel Mawhood
rac...@longitude0.co.uk wrote:
Hi list
What version of Chrome?
In 5.0 and Firefox latest (I don't like to keep it open),
Rachel Mawhood wrote:
Hi list
This new page has two background images, one in the body and one (a
logo) in a div called #outerwall (ie the wrapper).
http://www.st-alfege.org/friends-of-the-park/
Chrome seems to compute the position of the logo differently from
other browsers and puts it
This will approximately position the image; however, it is not a solution.
Thank you - I'll try that substitution -
A real solution would mean re-examining your layout. There is a
pixel width set on the body, and the wrappers are set in em
widths. There is a pixel width set on the body, and
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Rachel Mawhood wrote:
...
I have wondered about mixing up ems and pixels - before css, one
didn't mix up pixels and percentages when laying out a page - but I
have seen other web sites where ems and pixels are used together for
layout. Should one stick to one or the
I would set everything (except possibly image sizes) in percentages.
I must say, I would rather do this. But a page width that looks just
as I want it to look at 90 per cent wide on 1024 might not look nice
at 1152. For instance, if this web page was stretched wider, then
the righthand edge
