Re: [css-d] font-sizing bug in generated content in IE 10 ?

I've been thinking about this issue since it was first posted because it seems to relate, at least a bit, to a bug in IE9 and 10 that I reported late last year. See IE bug ID 772679

Re: [css-d] font-sizing bug in generated content in IE 10 ?

On 26.04.2013 14:35, Philip TAYLOR wrote: Better than "rem", Georg ? Having been forced to use "rem" for this fix, I am now considering adopting them more widely. Haven't bothered to test out what's best in bug-cases like this, only what works and seem to do no real harm. The "rem" unit do loo

Re: [css-d] font-sizing bug in generated content in IE 10 ?

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Philip TAYLOR wrote: > > > Georg wrote: > >> This IE bug makes me break the convention not to use fixed font-size on >> web pages, applying font-size in "px" on the generated content in IE9+ >> only - hacked in. Seems to work reasonably well. > > Better than "rem",

Re: [css-d] font-sizing bug in generated content in IE 10 ?

Georg wrote: > This IE bug makes me break the convention not to use fixed font-size on > web pages, applying font-size in "px" on the generated content in IE9+ > only - hacked in. Seems to work reasonably well. Better than "rem", Georg ? Having been forced to use "rem" for this fix, I am now c

Re: [css-d] font-sizing bug in generated content in IE 10 ?

On 26.04.2013 05:00, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: No idea what secret sauce the MSIE team has added in the mix, so I can't suggest any possible workaround. This IE bug makes me break the convention not to use fixed font-size on web pages, applying font-size in "px" on the generated content in

Re: [css-d] font-sizing bug in generated content in IE 10 ?

Le 26 avr. 2013 à 00:17, Gabriele Romanato a écrit : > You first declared a font-size on a type selector, p, with > a pseudo-element, then you declared a class with another pseudo-element on > the same element type The font-size is applied on the pseudo-element, not on the p. For both paragr

Re: [css-d] font-sizing bug in generated content in IE 10 ?

2013-04-25 18:17, Gabriele Romanato wrote: You wrote: font-size: 0.5rem. Is it a typo? I’m pretty sure Philip intentionally tested both with em and with rem. The bug manifests itself when em is used, not when rem is used, suggesting that IE 10 indeed calculates em wrong, when there is a pse

Re: [css-d] font-sizing bug in generated content in IE 10 ?

You wrote: font-size: 0.5rem. Is it a typo? Anyway, I think it's somewhat related to the cascade and inheritance behavior when applied to pseudo-elements. You first declared a font-size on a type selector, p, with a pseudo-element, then you declared a class with another pseudo-element on the same e

Re: [css-d] font sizing and ie 7 alignment help please!

Melinda Odom wrote: > Hi, > > I am having a terrible time with font sizing in all browsers because I want a > fixed width and height site. > > Page is: > http://www.designhosting.biz/support2.html > > The left column is only text. The right is a css scrolling menu. > > Using percentages on the bod

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

Bobby Jack wrote: > From: Ron Koster > > > There's possibly an argument here relating to the standard browser behaviour > for 'minimum font size'. Browsers currently 'round up' any fonts below that > size to the minimum. It would be an interesting alternative approach > (possibly configurabl

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Ron Koster wrote >I understand what you're saying, but specifying font sizes in pixels >*does* guarantee that things will look *proportionally* the same, >regardless of browser/platform. If I specify my font sizes as: > >9px, 14px, 23px, 37px, etc. Not really. There is only

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

From: Ron Koster > Hey, I have a solution: ALL web sites should be created as PDF files! > HTML/CSS be damned! With PDF, everything looks *exactly* how you > intended, it's zoomable to any factor you want, and prints out > perfectly each time, every time. Every frustrated designer new to the

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

At 08:57 AM 2/18/2009 -0800, Joseph Sims wrote: >It sounds like this is something you have been dealing with for a while, Yes and no, in a way: I suppose I've always been concerned about typographic issues and stuff, but it's really only since I joined this list (last summer) and started taking

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

"Ugh. I'm on the verge of just giving up, surrendering defeat, selling my computer, and just making hand-bound books, printed using ink and moveable metal type." It sounds like this is something you have been dealing with for a while, and as someone who works in web and print, and as someone who

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

At 11:39 AM 2/18/2009 -0500, Felix Miata wrote: > >> maintain realistic expectations > > > That much I already learned, many years ago! > >Are you really really sure? Not "really really", just "really"... ...maybe. Ron ;) __ c

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

At 10:33 AM 2/18/2009 -0600, Cheryl D Wise wrote: >Would you print a book or >newspaper in 5-7 pt type and expect people to read all of it? Only if it contained all the Mysterious Answers to the Universe & Beyond (including how to design a web page with CSS!). ;) Hey, I understand your point(s),

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

On 2009/02/18 11:33 (GMT-0500) Ron Koster composed: > At 10:53 AM 2/18/2009 -0500, Felix Miata wrote: >> maintain realistic expectations > That much I already learned, many years ago! Are you really really sure? > PS. Thanks for your reply, which I largely didn't respond to -- rest > assured

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

Remember IE 6 and below can't scale pixel based fonts so nothing resizes or scales. Many people are stuck using IE 6 because of corporate standards polices. A lot of our clients are in that situations, on computers locked to IE 6 by the IT dept. We have some very-high resolution/physical size comp

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

At 10:53 AM 2/18/2009 -0500, Felix Miata wrote: >Is this your ultimate goal: getting everything set up to fit into some >particular combination of relationships that look nicely together, and >hopefully work that way as well? Actually, I'm starting to think that what I'm trying to do is perform d

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

On 2009/02/18 16:08 (GMT) Nick Fitzsimons composed: > Pixels in CSS don't mean what you think they mean: they are relative > units, and aren't necessarily the same thing as the device pixels I > suspect you have in mind: > Pointing out that t

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

At 04:08 PM 2/18/2009 +, Nick Fitzsimons wrote: >Pixels in CSS don't mean what you think they mean: they are relative >units, and aren't necessarily the same thing as the device pixels I >suspect you have in mind: > > >Even if you specify yo

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

Ron Koster wrote: > I understand what you're saying, but specifying font sizes in pixels > *does* guarantee that things will look *proportionally* the same, > regardless of browser/platform. If I specify my font sizes as: > > 9px, 14px, 23px, 37px, etc. > > ...then that's what they'll be, no m

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

On 2009/02/18 10:53 (GMT-0500) Ron Koster composed: > what's the point in studying typography, and > art, and aesthetics, and what's the point of trying to do anything > with CSS and trying to get things to look good? On the web, "good" you can have. You just can't maintain perfect. For that, y

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

On Wed, February 18, 2009 3:58 pm, Ron Koster wrote: > I understand what you're saying, but specifying > font sizes in pixels *does* guarantee that things > will look *proportionally* the same, regardless > of browser/platform. If I specify my font sizes as: > > 9px, 14px, 23px, 37px, etc. > > ..

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

At 04:04 PM 2/18/2009 +0100, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: >We web designers create illusions, but there's no reason for us to live >in them. Pixel sized text doesn't guarantee the "right" size anywhere >but on our own screen(s) and in our own browser(s), and that's just >something all web designers _have

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

On 2009/02/18 08:50 (GMT-0500) Ron Koster composed: > However, when I was doing my font sizing using px, I could very > easily size my text, headings, etc. with specific whole, rounded > numbers (9px, 14px, 23px, 37px, etc.) no problem at all, but from > what you've pointed out, if I start doin

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

At 09:30 AM 2/18/2009 -0500, David Laakso wrote: >What's so difficult about keeping it simple and honoring user default? >body {font: 100%/1.4 sans-serif;} >#primary-content p {/*inherits default*/ } >#secondary-content p {font-size:95%;} >#tertiary-content p {font-size:90%;} >h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {/*

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

At 08:03 AM 2/18/2009 -0600, Cheryl D Wise wrote: >Where did you get 14px as the "recommended size for general readability"? > >I've been creating websites since 1993 and never recall seeing that size >mentioned. That's basically when I started, too, and then I was on webdesign-l for many years (

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

Ron Koster wrote: > So this is all rather ironic: in order to get things to look right, I > have to do them in the wrong way (using px), but in order to do them > in the right way (using %), then I'll never be sure that it actually > looks right (in fact, I'm virtually guaranteed that things wi

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

Where did you get 14px as the "recommended size for general readability"? I've been creating websites since 1993 and never recall seeing that size mentioned. Browser defaults usually equal the operating system default which is on Windows 16px and on Macs prior to OS X generally 12px (Macs with the

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

Ron Koster wrote: > > So this is all rather ironic: in order to get things to look right, I > have to do them in the wrong way (using px), but in order to do them > in the right way (using %), then I'll never be sure that it actually > looks right (in fact, I'm virtually guaranteed that things w

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

At 10:51 PM 2/17/2009 -0500, Felix Miata wrote: > > ...have nothing to do with the "Golden Section", and to me would look > >I have to wonder if more than a tiny fraction of professional web designers >know that that is. Probably far fewer of the zillion hack designers or the >junkware they use to

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

On 2009/02/17 19:45 (GMT-0600) Brian Funk composed: > With regard to > respecting users settings it seems more important to create in a way > that the text /can/ be scalable to let them do what they want with it - > hopefully without breaking your page design. Some ways of sizing prevent > thi

Re: [css-d] Font sizing

On 2009/02/17 21:59 (GMT-0500) Ron Koster composed: > the font sizes/proportions/percentages that David mentioned earlier... > At 10:02 AM 2/13/2009 -0800, David Hucklesby wrote: >>I find that these percentages work best >>cross-browser: 69%, 75%, 82%, 94% ... with a base font-size of 100%. > .

Re: [css-d] Font sizing [was: Font-color issue]

At 07:45 PM 2/17/2009 -0600, Brian Funk wrote: >The 100% is needed as a base to avoid problems in certain browsers - >others can explain this in detail far better than I. With regard to >respecting users settings it seems more important to create in a way >that the text /can/ be scalable to let

Re: [css-d] Font sizing [was: Font-color issue]

Ron Koster wrote: > At 10:02 AM 2/13/2009 -0800, David Hucklesby wrote: >> I find that these percentages work best >> cross-browser: 69%, 75%, 82%, 94% ... with a base font-size of 100%. > Firstly, from past threads, my understanding is that one shouldn't be > going any smaller than 100% -- or at

Re: [css-d] Font sizing - Is there a definative method?

Thanks for all the help guys, that was very informative :) Karl __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discus

Re: [css-d] Font sizing - Is there a definative method?

On 2008/07/09 09:46 (GMT-0500) Ben Fider apparently typed: > this is a good way to get a consistent font size: > * { > font-size: 100.01%; /* > http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=InternetExplorerWinBugs */ > } > html { /* > http://trevordavis.net/blog/tutorial/the-6-most-important-css-tech

Re: [css-d] Font sizing - Is there a definative method?

this is a good way to get a consistent font size: * { font-size: 100.01%; /* http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=InternetExplorerWinBugs */ } html { /* http://trevordavis.net/blog/tutorial/the-6-most-important-css-techniques-you-need-to-know/ */ font-size: 62.5%; /* will set your font-si

Re: [css-d] Font sizing - Is there a definative method?

Karl Bedingfield wrote: > I'm getting confused. There appears to be many ways of font resizing > and I cannot make my mind up which is the best method. > > In the body style some use use 12px and pixel font sizes there after. > Some use body style of 100% and percentages there after and finally > s

Re: [css-d] font sizing with decimals as opposed to whole numbers

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:21:39 -0500 > Felix Miata wrote: > >> On 2008/01/15 17:54 (GMT+1300) Michael Adams apparently typed: >> >>> Can anyone tell me why periodically i come across a site that uses: body { >>> font- >>> size: 100.1%; } >>> >> >> That was reputedly to appease ancient Opera versio

Re: [css-d] font sizing with decimals as opposed to whole numbers

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:21:39 -0500 Felix Miata wrote: > On 2008/01/15 17:54 (GMT+1300) Michael Adams apparently typed: > > > Can anyone tell me why periodically i come across a site that uses: > > body { font-size: 100.1%; } > > That was reputedly to appease ancient Opera versions, around v6 or

Re: [css-d] font sizing with decimals as opposed to whole numbers

On 2008/01/15 17:54 (GMT+1300) Michael Adams apparently typed: > Can anyone tell me why periodically i come across a site that uses: > body { font-size: 100.1%; } That was reputedly to appease ancient Opera versions, around v6 or prior. > or: > body { font-size: 76.6%; } > What browser are they

Re: [css-d] Font Sizing: Why Is Firefox Different?

On 06/06/16 14:06 (GMT-0400) Anthony Baker apparently typed: > Have been looking to different font sizing methods and decided to go > with a method suggested by Dan Cederholm (as I recall) ) Poor choice. Dan Cederholm isn't most people using your designs; he isn't a normal user: http://www.useit.

Re: [css-d] Font Sizing: Why Is Firefox Different?

On 06/06/16 14:49 (GMT-0400) Jade Rauenzahn apparently typed: > I've always had very good luck with cross-browser compatability if I set my > font sizes in ems. 1em is = 12px font, while .8em is equivalent to 10px. In most browsers, 'html, body {font-size: 1em}' produces 12pt text, not 12px text.

Re: [css-d] Font Sizing: Why Is Firefox Different?

Anthony Baker wrote: > Am wondering if someone has any info on this for me. > I think you have entered the twilight zone of personal opinion :-P . Not to mention font wars that some of us love, but are a no/no on this list. There are numerous pages on font-sizing in the list wiki. If you want

Re: [css-d] Font Sizing: Why Is Firefox Different?

Jade Rauenzahn wrote: > Have you ever tried using ems for font-sizing? :-) > I've always had very good luck with cross-browser compatability if I > set my font sizes in ems. 1em is = 12px font, while .8em is > equivalent to 10px. 1em ≠ 12px. 1em = "unchanged - same as its base". What's the bas

Re: [css-d] Font Sizing: Why Is Firefox Different?

Have you ever tried using ems for font-sizing? I've always had very good luck with cross-browser compatability if I set my font sizes in ems. 1em is = 12px font, while .8em is equivalent to 10px. The code is simply: font-size: .8em;

Re: [css-d] Font Sizing: Why Is Firefox Different?

On 6/16/06, Anthony Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey Folks, > > Am wondering if someone has any info on this for me. > > Have been looking to different font sizing methods ... > Does anyone have a favorite method? I'll give you my favorite, which seems to work allright. html { font-size:1

Re: [css-d] Font Sizing: Why Is Firefox Different?

Anthony Baker wrote: > Have been looking to different font sizing methods and decided to go > with a method suggested by Dan Cederholm (as I recall) )where the > font size is defined in the BODY tag and then percentages are used to > increase or decrease the size. EMs are used for line height.

Re: [css-d] Font Sizing: Why Is Firefox Different?

On 6/16/06, Anthony Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Have been looking to different font sizing methods and decided to go > with a method suggested by Dan Cederholm (as I recall) )where the font > size is defined in the BODY tag and then percentages are used to > increase or decrease the size. E

Re: [css-d] font sizing

On 06/05/23 13:07 (GMT-0400) Nick Fitzsimons apparently typed: > It's also broken on IE-Win, which ignores the decimal fraction of > percentages on the font-size. Thus it treats [62.5%] as > font-size: 62%; > giving a font-size of 9.92px. If you then try to specify the dimensions > of some

Re: [css-d] font sizing

> And 1.6em is the authors line-height(leading) preference(in other words, > the author is specifying her desire to reset the users line-height > preference .3em or .4em /greater/ than the user prefers). Default is > font: 100%/1.2 (or 1.1) sans-serif; (line-height is expressed as a raw > number,

Re: [css-d] font sizing

Nick Lehman wrote: > I came across this while trolling through someone's css file: > > body { > font: 62.5%/1.6em "Lucida Grande", Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; > color: #000; > background-color: #FFF; > } > > what is the intent of the size calculation "62.5%/1.6em"? > > -n

Re: [css-d] font sizing

Felix Miata wrote: > That 62.5% hocus pocus CSS is for designers who think px are more > important than visitor respect and content fluidity. It originated and > is explained here: http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/ > It's also broken on IE-Win, which ignores the decimal fraction of percentages on

Re: [css-d] font sizing

Just to clarify Nick, the "62.5%/1.6em" isn't a calculation as in 62.5% divided by 1.6em. It is shorthand for font-size/line-height. In this case, the 62.5% sets the font-size to a percentage of the browser's default font-size. The 1.6em does something similar but uses the "em" unit which like pe

Re: [css-d] font sizing

> what is the intent of the size calculation "62.5%/1.6em"? > > -nick > > Basically the general browser default size is 16px so 62.5% gives a text > size of 10px. That means 1em = 10 pixels so pixel dimensions can be > converted into ems so the layout will scale according t

Re: [css-d] font sizing

ahh...it's not math it's a separator. Thanks On May 23, 2006, at 11:25 AM, Shawn Lawler wrote: > font-size / line-height > > http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_font_font.asp > > Shawn > > what is the intent of the size calculation "62.5%/1.6em"? > __

Re: [css-d] font sizing

On 5/23/06, Shawn Lawler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what is the intent of the size calculation "62.5%/1.6em"? Felix? :-) -- Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [css-d] font sizing

On 06/05/23 11:15 (GMT-0400) Nick Lehman apparently typed: > I came across this while trolling through someone's css file: > body { > font: 62.5%/1.6em ...} > what is the intent of the size calculation "62.5%/1.6em"? That 62.5% hocus pocus CSS is for designers who think px are more imp

Re: [css-d] font sizing

font-size / line-height http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_font_font.asp Shawn what is the intent of the size calculation "62.5%/1.6em"? -nick __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org