okt 20 2014 12:20 Philip Taylor <p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk>:
> On the contrary, I want to challenge your assertion that "you can translate > from px sizing to percentages" for all but the most trivial of cases. If > /everything/ was originally expressed in pixels, then of course you can > translate from px sizing to percentages (a child of five would know how to do > that), but if some elements of the original design were expressed in less > tangible units (percent, ems, rems, etc), then it should be patently obvious > to you that you can NOT translate from px sizing to percentages. Your challenge is futile. An example was given about grids expressed in pixels. GJim said that percentages were used. That is the context. When I said "you can translate from px sizing to percentages” grids is the context for that claim (Specifically the example used). You’re trying the silly exercise to take that sentence out of that context, to imply I meant it in general terms. A child could understand that was not the case. Consider context, not only when translating pixel-expressed designs, but also when reading this list. ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
