>Really you had two issues going on. First was your pathing issue
>which prevented the rest of us from seeing the problem (unless we had>the font
>installed) and you did get that corrected for creampuff and I
>was able to verify that the font is now downloading properly with no
>errors.
The
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Elli Vizcaino wrote:
> I also think you're convinced it's an absolute path issue but it's not. You
> get an error message because I'm a WP and it's PHP driven and directories
> just work a little differently - people just cant get direct access to a
> directory o
I also think you're convinced it's an absolute path issue but it's not.
You get an error message because I'm a WP and it's PHP driven and
directories just work a little differently - people just cant get direct
access to a directory on WP, just because it exist - it just doesn't
work that
Elli Vizcaino wrote:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Elli Vizcaino wrote:
Can you tell me what version of Chrome and OS you're viewing from? And
have you checked it out in any other browsers? Because it was never an issue
before. The link had been up for discussion in another post a couple
> Am working on a coming soon page for my site and @font-face doesn't seem to
> be working. Not sure why .I implemented @font-face on another project and it
> was fine. Now it's not working for this. I am using a different font now -
> could this have something to do with it?
I believe you need
When you use a path like "fonts/creampuff.ttf" that is
> relative to where your css file is located at and so the browser is
> going to look in
> "http://www.e7flux.com/e7flux2012/css/fonts/creampuff.ttf".
I also think you're convinced it's an absolute path issue but it's not. You get
an erro
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Elli Vizcaino wrote:
>> Can you tell me what version of Chrome and OS you're viewing from? And
> have you checked it out in any other browsers? Because it was never an issue
> before. The link had been up for discussion in another post a couple of weeks
> ago
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Elli Vizcaino wrote:
> Can you tell me what version of Chrome and OS you're viewing from? And have
> you checked it out in any other browsers? Because it was never an issue
> before. The link had been up for discussion in another post a couple of weeks
> ago and
Am 05.01.12 01:05, schrieb Kathy Wheeler:
On 01/05/2012, at 9:53 AM, Joergen W. Lang wrote:
Am 04.01.12 23:26, schrieb Kathy Wheeler:
On 01/05/2012, at 8:52 AM, Joergen W. Lang wrote:
For future projects you might also consider using a web font
service such as Fontsquirrel to avoid other we
On 01/05/2012, at 9:53 AM, Joergen W. Lang wrote:
> Am 04.01.12 23:26, schrieb Kathy Wheeler:
>> On 01/05/2012, at 8:52 AM, Joergen W. Lang wrote:
>>> For future projects you might also consider using a web font
>>> service such as Fontsquirrel to avoid other web font-related
>>> issues.
>>
>> Wh
> On Firefox, in the Web Console (open it with Tools -> Web Developer
> -> Web Console prior to loading the page), I see the error message:
>
> downloadable font: rejected by sanitizer (font-family: "creampuff"
> style:normal weight:normal stretch:normal src index:0) source:
> http://www.e7flux.c
On Wednesday 2012-01-04 11:16 -0800, Elli Vizcaino wrote:
> Ok so I tested on latest versions of Chrome, Opera, Safari for
> Windows, IE9, IE8, IE7 and they are all rendering the font. It's
> in FF where I'm having the problem. I tested in both FF3.6 & 9 and
> what you see on those versions of FF,
> Are you sure it's working in your other project
> (http://www.e7flux.com/clients/sof/)? Because when i go to that site
> I get the same error message in chrome for littledays.ttf and that
> font definitely does not show up. Your issue is you're using the
> relative src from where the css is lo
Am 04.01.12 23:26, schrieb Kathy Wheeler:
On 01/05/2012, at 8:52 AM, Joergen W. Lang wrote:
For future projects you might also consider using a web font
service such as Fontsquirrel to avoid other web font-related
issues.
What are the other "web font-related" issues you refer to here?
Cro
>> The font is in its own directory. The link you provided places the the
> fonts directory within the CSS directory. I don't know why it's a
> problem this time around because the way I wrote my CSS code is exactly how I
> used it in another project (http://www.e7flux.com/clients/sof/) and it
> Elli,
>
> As Philip Taylor has correctly pointed out, the URI you used in your
> style sheet is a relative URI.
>
> The CSS specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/syndata.html#uri) has
> this to say about relative URIs:
>
> "For CSS style sheets, the base URI is that of the style sheet, n
On 01/05/2012, at 8:52 AM, Joergen W. Lang wrote:
> For future projects you might also consider using a web font service such as
> Fontsquirrel to avoid other web font-related issues.
What are the other "web font-related" issues you refer to here?
KathyW.
__
Elli,
As Philip Taylor has correctly pointed out, the URI you used in your
style sheet is a relative URI.
The CSS specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/syndata.html#uri) has
this to say about relative URIs:
"For CSS style sheets, the base URI is that of the style sheet, not that
of the
> The font is in its own directory. The link you provided places the the fonts
> directory within the CSS directory. I don't know why it's a problem this time
> around because the way I wrote my CSS code is exactly how I used it in
> another project (http://www.e7flux.com/clients/sof/) and i
Elli Vizcaino wrote:
The font is in its own directory. The link you provided places the the fonts
directory within the CSS directory. I don't know why it's a problem this time
around because the way I wrote my CSS code is exactly how I used it in another
project (http://www.e7flux.com/clien
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Elli Vizcaino wrote:
>
>
> The font is in its own directory. The link you provided places the the fonts
> directory within the CSS directory. I don't know why it's a problem this time
> around because the way I wrote my CSS code is exactly how I used it in
> ano
> Ok so I tested on latest versions of Chrome, Opera, Safari for Windows,
> IE9, IE8, IE7 and they are all rendering the font. It's in FF where I'm
> having the problem. I tested in both FF3.6 & 9 and what you see on those
> versions of FF, is the fallback font (Brush Script STD) of the font
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Elli Vizcaino wrote:
> Ok so I tested on latest versions of Chrome, Opera, Safari for Windows, IE9,
> IE8, IE7 and they are all rendering the font. It's in FF where I'm having the
> problem. I tested in both FF3.6 & 9 and what you see on those versions of FF,
>
Hi Barney!
Ok so I tested on latest versions of Chrome, Opera, Safari for Windows,
IE9, IE8, IE7 and they are all rendering the font. It's in FF where I'm
having the problem. I tested in both FF3.6 & 9 and what you see on those
versions of FF, is the fallback font (Brush Script STD) of t
> Yes, of course it could. A huge number of things could have gone wrong
> — without an example it is almost impossible to provide helpful
> advice.
>
> However:
> • Often, it's just a misplaced file issue: the fonts are in the wrong
> directory relative to the stylesheet with the declaration, or
25 matches
Mail list logo
