Thomas Livingston wrote Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:58:36 -0500:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 10:00 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 5:43 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
properly
configured
By this you mean default install?
Default install of what? X? Display? Fonts? Browser? OS?
You said:
Jay Gilmore wrote Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:45:02 -0400:
Felix Miata wrote :
In fact, most must have done
at least some personalization, since most hit statistics that say the most
common screen resolution is 1024x768 even though old versions of doze
default to 640x480 and newer to 800x600,
On 12/23/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Opera and KHTML do a better job than Gecko and
Safari (as does IE), because they come set with regard to system DPI,
setting up px sizes based upon 11pt or 12pt (e.g. Opera @ 120 DPI 12pt
== 20px, while @96 DPI 12pt == 16px), while Gecko is
On 21 Dec 2005, at 5:25 pm, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Felix Miata wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
body { font-size: small; }
is generally acceptable and is approximately the same as 80% of the
Definitely not acceptable to me for content paragraphs. :-(
Why not? Is it too big or too small for you?
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Felix Miata wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
body { font-size: small; }
is generally acceptable and is approximately the same as 80% of the
Definitely not acceptable to me for content paragraphs. :-(
Why not? Is it too big or too small for you? Or is it just not
On Dec 21, 2005, at 5:43 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
properly
configured
By this you mean default install?
-
Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
Media Logic
www.mlinc.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
On Dec 20, 2005, at 11:24 PM, Ric Raftis wrote:
underlying agression
I've seen it.
-
Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
Media Logic
www.mlinc.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
Thomas Livingston wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 5:43 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
properly
configured
By this you mean default install?
Default install of what? X? Display? Fonts? Browser? OS?
My experience with installers is they more often than not finish
without announcing to the user
Felix Miata wrote:
snip
In fact, most must have done
at least some personalization, since most hit statistics that say the most
common screen resolution is 1024x768 even though old versions of doze
default to 640x480 and newer to 800x600, and signicant numbers are above
the median.
It
Thomas Livingston wrote:
Still talking browsers?
...on top of one of a multitude of OS and hardware-packages, I guess.
So... (new) listers looking for help, might need to know what
'properly configured browser' is. If most users don't change a thing
when they install a browser, or
Thomas Livingston wrote:
If most users don't change a thing when they install a browser, or
change the one that came with their PC, then what's properly
configured mean?
I think we should realize that most people don't know anything about
configuring their browser and even their computer!
Peter J. Farrell wrote:
I think it's safe to assume default installation settings for most
users -- everybody else are fringe cases.
That would leave us with... how many million 'fringe cases'?
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
The discussion list
Enough said. So nothing changes. Good.
It would be nice if this could be properly documented in Mr Allsopp's new
project. Bad examples are littered throughout the Web and do nothing to help
novices or the greater good.
-Original Message-
From: Felix Miata
Sent: Wednesday, 21 December
done so for a reason. We can only guess at what that reason might be.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Gunlaug Sørtun
Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2005 4:05 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Peter J
Nice work Georg.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Gunlaug Sørtun
Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2005 3:31 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Samuel Richardson wrote:
What's the best, cross-browser
What's the best, cross-browser supported way to setup font sizes in CSS
documents?
I've been using
body
{
font-size .8em;
}
then
p
{
font-size : 90%; (adjust per design to get the correct sizes etc)
}
the problem I've found with this is that I'll sometimes set a 90% on a
td element (or
On 21 Dec 2005, at 11:57 AM, Samuel Richardson wrote:
What's the best, cross-browser supported way to setup font sizes in
CSS documents?
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=FontSize
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
**
The discussion list for
I have had good luck with the Owen Briggs Method across browsers--
just watch out for the cascade:
http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/index.html
Paula
Paula Petrik
Professor
Department of History Art History
Associate Director
Center for History New Media
]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Terrence Wood
Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2005 10:48 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
On 21 Dec 2005, at 11:57 AM, Samuel Richardson wrote:
What's the best, cross-browser
Where did you get that from in that article? Setting the font size to
100% and then setting individual elements to ems is how I do all my
pages. As far as I know it is the recommended method so users have
control of their own viewport.
Regards,
Ric
Paul Noone wrote:
So setting the font
on this list of late?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Ric Raftis
Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2005 1:08 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Where did you get that from in that article? Setting the font
SamuelYou wrote: body { font-size .8em; } p { font-size : 90%; (adjust per design to get the correct sizes etc)}That is asking for trouble, you really need to watch out for the cascade. Get a p inside a p, an li inside an li or a li inside a p and suddenly instead of being 12px text ( 16px -
Nick Cowie wrote:
Samuel
You wrote:
body { font-size .8em; }
p { font-size : 90%;
(adjust per design to get the correct sizes etc)
}
That is asking for trouble, you really need to watch out for the cascade.
Get a p inside a p,
It's very rare that p elements would be nested like that and
Not from me Paul. If my msg came across that way, please accept my
apologies. It was not intended.
Regards,
Ric
Paul Noone wrote:
Is it just me or is there some underlying agression on this list of late?
**
The discussion list for
Paul Noone wrote:
Ric Raftis wrote:
Paul Noone wrote:
So setting the font size for the html element to 100.01% and then
adjusting it in the body (or elsewhere) is no longer recommended
I tried to find fault with Owen Briggs' Text Sizing
Samuel Richardson wrote:
What's the best, cross-browser supported way to setup font sizes in
CSS documents?
Watch out for this one...
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_13.html
...and this one...
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_03_04.html
regards
Georg
--
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
body { font-size: small; }
is generally acceptable and is approximately the same as 80% of the
Definitely not acceptable to me for content paragraphs. :-(
default font-size.
Actually whether small matches 80% or not depends on browsers and
rounding and the default size
Felix Miata wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
body { font-size: small; }
is generally acceptable and is approximately the same as 80% of the
Definitely not acceptable to me for content paragraphs. :-(
I have to agree with Felix here as well. In the end, I have to abide my
clients wishes
28 matches
Mail list logo
