On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:01:59 -0400, Randy wrote: >On Tuesday 01 September 2009 02:23:39 pm Enrico Tröger wrote: >> Well, I completely understand your issue. And basically I tend to >> agree that a fixed width is not good. OTOH I just like the reduced >> width as it does read better for me on my widescreen (as already >> pointed out). But yes, not everybody has a widescreen, not everybody >> likes tiny fonts as I do and so on. >> >> So, maybe we should indeed remove the fixed width to make it easier >> for most users to read. > >Lex made/found a suggestion to change the line: > width: 60em; >to: > max-width: 60em; > >And that seems to work well for me and for him--if it works for you, >that seems to be a good solution. (I haven't spent much time testing >it, but it's hard to imagine what could go wrong...bad move, hunh ;-)
Oops, I was too slow. I replied about this in the other mail, sorry for the confusion. Still, Lex' suggestion is great and as I said, I also don't see a reason why we shouldn't it. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc
pgphgFv6HGkI3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Geany mailing list [email protected] http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
