I'm running Konqueror 3.4.1 w/ KDE 3.4.1 on Gentoo Linux and there
aren't any problems at all when I go to your website. Konqueror and
Firefox render it exacly the same. On top of that IIRC Galeon uses
gecko, which is the same thing Firefox, Mozilla, Epiphany, et al use so
they should render the
Webmaster wrote:
Georg, the fix doesn't suggest putting different values on html and
body (or did I miss the whole point?).
I understood the solution to be setting body and/or html to 100.01%
and then setting any other styles and text-level attributes with ems
or %. Did I get it wrong?
Not
The result from my sidestep in the 'Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com' thread is
clear, thanks to some off-list input. It _is_ quite possible to inject a
human bug surrounding font-size into CSS, and end up with pretty
logical but strange results.
No problems with IE/win this time though...
I'm sure
I thought it was a quite descriptive name for an old bug. Must be a
flaw in my Norwenglish... :-)
Your Norwenglish is good. Much better than my Englegen. I'd just
never heard the bug name before so was curious.
I normally just do
body {
font-size: 62.5%;
}
The size everything else as
What is the default 'display' property of a TR element?
Is there somewhere you can look this sort of thing up?
Thanks,
Stephen
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.5/110 - Release Date: 22/09/2005
Andy Budd wrote:
I officially don't care about Opera so am happy to avoid using 100.0%;
Brighton designer in browser snub shocker...news at 11
;)
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin
Taken from http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/tables.html
The default style sheet for HTML 4.0 in the appendix illustrates the use
of these values for HTML 4.0:
TABLE{ display: table }
TR { display: table-row }
...
Hope that helps!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andy Budd wrote:
Your Norwenglish is good. Much better than my Englegen. I'd just
never heard the bug name before so was curious.
No wonder they spoke funny over in Brighton. Oh well, that was a long
time ago...
I normally just do
body { font-size: 62.5%; }
The size everything else as ems.
Please remove me from your mailing list.
KENNETH KING
Internet Media Designer
www.sybrondental.com
-Original Message-
From: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 1:49 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: digest for
Dear WSG Team,
It's been my pleasure to be with you all these days.
Now that I am not doing CMS any more, I wish to be
removed from the list. I could not find any link on
the site to unsubscribe. So, I request the moderator
to remove me from the list.
Thanks in advance. Hope you all enjoy
G'day
I'm just wondering how you all use the address element, or how you
think it -should- be used?
There are several threads in the list archives about it. Here's a couple:
http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg@webstandardsgroup.org/msg11099.html
On Sep 23, 2005, at 4:17 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
html { font-size: 100%; /* IE hack */ }
body { font-size: 0.75em; }
...does always result in consistent resizing. However, it does not
prevent unnecessary breaking of some designs, *if* elements further in
are sized _up_.
The reason is
There are Javascript Table of Content (TOC) scripts out there
that can do this. Problem is, they don't work if Javascript isn't
available.
CSS 2.1 introduced support for this with list counters. Problem
is, many browsers don't support list counters.
I have a purely server-side (PHP) solution
13 matches
Mail list logo
