I really don't understand what you mean, when you say: > It's a designer-bug. Vertical position of the navigation relies entirely > on font size, which means it is all over the place in my browsers on > first load. > > No two browsers calculate font size exactly the same before rendering, > so relying on "pixel-perfect" font size across browser-land is not a > good idea. Add in font resizing and other regular options in browsers, > and it gets a lot worse - for the whole layout. >
The problem should not rely on font size, but rather the margin from the top of the item that margin-top is being applied to, to the bottom of the item that is directly above the item that margin-top is being applied to, correct? I mean I do know that font size across browsers does not render the same, but if using pixels for a font size, should the pixels (in relation to size) render the same? I would think they would, but maybe I am wrong. You should rethink the positioning method, and forget about deviations > between browsers until you have stabilized it in one. > I do not understand this either, unless you are talking about using margin as the positioning method. I have stabilized it one browser. This is why I am worried about the deviations in all the others. FWIW: there are no reliable ways to target Opera anymore. You can't even > know for sure if Opera is Opera. > I do understand this. But I was hoping there was a way, like using JavaScript. I can understand if there is not one though. Besides: one should only target/hack dead browsers, like IE7 and older. > Targeting/hacking live browsers like Opera, Firefox, Safari etc. for > real, will only create maintenance-problems as new versions arrive. This is the most confusing part. IE7 is a live browser, if it is not then how can Opera, Firefox, Safari, etc., be? Every new version is then a stable version (dead version, though dead almost sounds as though you would mean like IE3 or Netscape 3). Or, are you saying that there will never be updates for IE7, though upon saying that, it would be incorrectly "considered" stable? -- Brett P. On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Gunlaug Sørtun <gunla...@c2i.net> wrote: > David Dixon wrote: > >> Chomping at the bit to dismiss IE7 a little early aren't we Georg? :) >> > > :-) > > Look at IE7 from a designer/developer's point of view... > > IE7 is "dead" - meaning: "stable", so if it acts up and there isn't a > suitable solution that all browsers can see, there's no harm whatsoever > in hacking its dead body to pieces. IE7 can't come back to haunt us, no > matter how many users it has. > > No other browser/version will ever see what we feed IE7 only - with the > right targeting method, apart from maybe IE8 (and probably its > successors if it gets any) when it mimics IE7 in "(backwards) > compatibility view". > > Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: >> >>> Besides: one should only target/hack dead browsers, like IE7 and older. >>> Targeting/hacking live browsers like Opera, Firefox, Safari etc. for real, >>> will only create maintenance-problems as new versions arrive. >>> >> > regards > Georg > -- > http://www.gunlaug.no > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > ******************************************************************* > > ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
