On 2010/02/07 20:49 (GMT-0500) Reese composed:
> I don't see what the
> difference would be at different dpi values, which was the brunt of
> the argument against the practice in the links Felix posted.
You apparently missed the main point of
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/bbcnSS.html entirely. I
Reese wrote:
> On 07-Feb-10 20:58, David Laakso wrote:
>
>
>> For starters neither of the above is valid CSS.
>>
>
> Right, I got in a hurry when stripping out unrelated stuph.
> How about this?
>
> * {font-size: 100%; padding: 0; margin: 0;}
> body {font: 0.84em/1.333 Arial, sans-serif;}
>
On 07-Feb-10 20:58, David Laakso wrote:
>
> For starters neither of the above is valid CSS.
Right, I got in a hurry when stripping out unrelated stuph.
How about this?
* {font-size: 100%; padding: 0; margin: 0;}
body {font: 0.84em/1.333 Arial, sans-serif;}
* {font-size: 84%; padding: 0; margin
Reese wrote:
> On 07-Feb-10 20:31, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>
>
>>> I'm at a bit of a loss, to see the difference between
>>>
>>> * {font-size: 100%;}
>>> body {font: 0.84em;}
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> * {font-size: 84%;}
>>> body {font: 1em;}
>>>
>> I'm at a bit of a loss to see why you would
On 07-Feb-10 20:31, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>> I'm at a bit of a loss, to see the difference between
>>
>> * {font-size: 100%;}
>> body {font: 0.84em;}
>>
>> and
>>
>> * {font-size: 84%;}
>> body {font: 1em;}
>
> I'm at a bit of a loss to see why you would consider using either of them.
I'm no
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, Reese wrote:
> On 07-Feb-10 03:50, Felix Miata wrote:
> > On 2010/02/07 01:09 (GMT-0500) Kym Costanzo composed:
> >
> >> Regarding your question about making the page too small for you to read, I
> >> am open to any teaching you wish to offer. As I learned CSS, I read over
>
On 07-Feb-10 03:50, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2010/02/07 01:09 (GMT-0500) Kym Costanzo composed:
>
>> Regarding your question about making the page too small for you to read, I
>> am open to any teaching you wish to offer. As I learned CSS, I read over and
>> over that the "right" way to size fonts
On 2010/02/07 03:50 (GMT-0500) Felix Miata composed:
> Resolution is irrelevant to anything unless right along with it is known the
> size of the display. Combined they result is what is variously called PPI or
> DPI, which is a measure of screen pixel density. The higher the DPI, the more
> pixel
On 2010/02/07 01:09 (GMT-0500) Kym Costanzo composed:
> Regarding your question about making the page too small for you to read, I
> am open to any teaching you wish to offer. As I learned CSS, I read over and
> over that the "right" way to size fonts is to set the page font size to
> 62.5% and th
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris F.A. Johnson [mailto:ch...@cfajohnson.com]
>There were 12 errors at validator.w3.org.
>
I conceded that - when I posted my initial question, I ~did~ state there
were validation errors. But if you'd looked at all 12 of them, every one of
them was rela
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, Kym Costanzo wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, Kym Costanzo wrote:
> Could you be more specific about the HTML errors? I did validate the HTML,
> but the only errors I got were regarding the drop-down menu that I am asking
> for help with. I can't fix those, as I don't know what
Kym Costanzo wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Here's the site: http://americandancewheels.webscapersites.com/
>>>
>
>
>
> As I learned CSS, I read over and
> over that the "right" way to size fonts is to set the page font size to
> 62.5% and then increase using ems.
> Kym
>
>
>
So be it.
On th
At 2/6/2010 10:09 PM, Kym Costanzo wrote:
>Could you be more specific about the HTML errors? I did validate the HTML,
>but the only errors I got were regarding the drop-down menu that I am asking
>for help with. I can't fix those, as I don't know what I can do differently
>with that menu. The valid
Kym Costanzo wrote:
> I've got a train wreck in IE6, so bad that my attempts to fix this are only
> making it worse. The site is great in IE7, IE8, Chrome, FF3. I really wish
> IE6 would just die already.
>
>
>
>
> Here's the site: http://americandancewheels.webscapersites.com/
>
>
>
> Kym
>
>
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, Kym Costanzo wrote:
>
> > I've got a train wreck in IE6, so bad that my attempts to fix this are
only
> > making it worse. The site is great in IE7, IE8, Chrome, FF3. I really
wish
> > IE6 would just die already.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here's the site: http://americandancewheels.web
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, Kym Costanzo wrote:
> I've got a train wreck in IE6, so bad that my attempts to fix this are only
> making it worse. The site is great in IE7, IE8, Chrome, FF3. I really wish
> IE6 would just die already.
>
>
>
> I know some of the issues are stemming from the CSS navigati
I've got a train wreck in IE6, so bad that my attempts to fix this are only
making it worse. The site is great in IE7, IE8, Chrome, FF3. I really wish
IE6 would just die already.
I know some of the issues are stemming from the CSS navigation menu I got
from a CSS menu site (haven't been able t
17 matches
Mail list logo
