Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
Is there a way to tell the browser…*any* browser: 1em = 16px and that’s that?
Or is
body
{
font-size:100%;
}
—with the underlying hope and assumption that 100% is understood to mean 16px
and from there the leap that 1em equals the 16pixels — all we have in that
toolkit?
John
__
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/
Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
Le 25 juil. 2014 à 15:06, John j...@coffeeonmars.com a écrit :
Is there a way to tell the browser…*any* browser: 1em = 16px and that’s that?
Or is
body
{
font-size:100%;
}
—with the underlying hope and assumption that 100% is understood to mean 16px
and from there the leap that 1em equals the 16pixels — all we have in that
toolkit?
You could conceivably force the assumption that the base font-size is 16px:
html { font-size: 16px; }
Then 1em = 16px, until you write something like
p { font-size: .85em; padding: 1em; }
Your 'em' (padding) in that case will definitively *not* be equal to 16px ………
Forget about that equation of 1em = 16px; it is useless. Think differently, in
terms of proportions, as in “I want the padding around that block of text to be
twice the font-size”, or I “want that headline to be twice as big as my body
text” and don’t spend time translating that into something that *might* result
in being equal to 32px or whatever.
Philippe
--
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.com
__
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/
Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
On 2014-07-25 08:15 (GMT+0300) Jukka K. Korpela composed: The downside of the rem is... While everything you wrote is or at least appears to be true, it entirely misses the higher level point I was trying to make, which was to put forth in simplistic terms the idea that thinking in px is best replaced by thinking in any of the available units that embody more granular precision, that are: 1-tailored to the pleasure and ease of the user, and 2-easier for the stylist, once he *abandons* the idea that the web is a place where high precision has any business being a priority Web browsers do a nice job of presenting semantically correct HTML without help from CSS. They're naturally responsive too. CSS offers a high degree of power to overcome a browser's ability to do what it is designed to do, to limit fluidity and flexibility. CSS ought to be used judiciously to enhance the semantic order, and give it character and color consistent with the nature of the page or site and/or its owner, not fixate everything to one person's or one team's idea of some kind of perfection in both relative terms, and the more troubling for users, absolute terms. Relative on average ought to be close enough. The web ain't paper. Viewports come in an unlimited range of physical sizes, and nearly as broad a variety of aspect ratios. Viewing distance is another significant variable. One size cannot fit all. That makes the px unit a poor choice for design sizing focus, particularly since it also has no predictable relationship to any physical size that corresponds favorably with comfort, ease of use, or pleasure. Most of the web has become a morass of URIs where CSS often outweighs HTML in multiples of 2 or 3 or even more, where a minor styling adjustment for one minor class creates unforeseen impacts elsewhere that take hours or days to debug, if the negative impact(s) ever gets discovered at all, and where a large site style overhaul can be a months long process that ultimately can stretch to more than a year. That puts the cart in front of the horse, not to mention gobbling bandwidth that's going to become more precious as time marches on and user numbers continue to mushroom. Remember, a browser is a user agent. It's a tool that ought to be able to please the user, and do it with as little effort as possible. When pieces are bigger, fewer pieces are needed, resulting in easier construction. The more simplistic and efficient the CSS, the better a browser can do its job, and the lower the burden on the information highway. IOW, to the extent feasible fitting with the goal of a page/site, the simpler, the better. Simple as thinking in px might appear to be to some, or even most, considering the macro issues above, now that lack of browser support for rem, ch and other newer relative units is near extinction, it is no longer, if it ever was. IMO, it isn't, and never was. -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ __ 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/
Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, John wrote:
Is there a way to tell the browser…*any* browser: 1em = 16px and that’s that?
Or is
body
{
font-size:100%;
}
—with the underlying hope and assumption that 100% is understood to
mean 16px and from there the leap that 1em equals the 16pixels — all
we have in that toolkit?
Why would you want it to necessarily be 16px? It it were, it would
be too small for many people to read comfortably.
In my browser, font-size:100%; means 22px, a good size for me to
read easily.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, http://cfajohnson.com__
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/
Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
2014-07-25 9:06, John wrote:
Is there a way to tell the browser…*any* browser: 1em = 16px and that’s that?
No.
Or is
body
{
font-size:100%;
}
—with the underlying hope and assumption that 100% is understood to mean 16px
and from there the leap that 1em equals the 16pixels — all we have in that
toolkit?
100% means, when used as the value of the font-size property, exactly
the font size of the parent element. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you so intensely want to have 1em equal 16px no matter what, why are
you using the em unit at all? To keep the numeric values smaller? But
for that, you can use the pc (pica) unit, since, according to the
definitions in modern CSS, 1pc = 12pt = 16px, as an identity.
Yucca
__
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/
Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
Actually, I believe ems are based on the prior font-size of the element in which its contained. rems are based on body. For example, If you have a div in the body with no font-size set and a span inside that div with font-size set to 120% then it will be 120% of the body font-size. However, if the div has a font-size of 110%, then the span would have a font-size that is 120% of 110% the divs calculated font-size would be of the body font-size. Stay with me.. :) Example 1: Body font-size = 16px div font-size = none set span font-size (120%) = 19.2px Example2: Body font-size = 16px div font-size (110%) = 17.6px span font-size (120%) = 21.12px Please someone correct me if I am wrong. HTH, Best, Karl DeSaulniers Design Drumm http://designdrumm.com __ 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/
Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
-- Original Message --
From: Karl DeSaulniers k...@designdrumm.com
To: CSS-Discuss Discuss css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Sent: 7/25/2014 4:59:48 AM
Subject: Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
Actually, I believe ems are based on the prior font-size of the element
in which its contained. rems are based on body.
For example, If you have a div in the body with no font-size set and a
span inside that div with font-size set to 120% then it will be 120% of
the body font-size.
However, if the div has a font-size of 110%, then the span would have a
font-size that is 120% of 110% the divs calculated font-size would be
of the body font-size.
Stay with me.. :)
Example 1:
Body font-size = 16px
div font-size = none set
span font-size (120%) = 19.2px
Example2:
Body font-size = 16px
div font-size (110%) = 17.6px
span font-size (120%) = 21.12px
Please someone correct me if I am wrong.
Well, your math is correct, but it shows that the calculated font size
is based on the span's parent font size which is the div.
Now if you had used a rem in your calculation this wouldn't have
occurred because the font size would have been base on the Root font
size; that's the definition of rem, a root-based em.
That's beauty of using rems, they are stable in that they're based on
the root font-size, but they are dynamic and relate to size changes of
objects and screens.
/* Example3: */
body {
font-size: 16px;
}
div style= font-size: 110%/div /*= 17.6 px
*/
span style= font-size: 1.2rem/span /* (1.2 * 16px) = 19.2 px
*/
Michael Rose
HTH,
Best,
Karl DeSaulniers
Design Drumm
http://designdrumm.com
__
__
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/
Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
On Jul 25, 2014, at 6:02 AM, Mike Martha mmr...@comcast.net wrote:
-- Original Message --
From: Karl DeSaulniers k...@designdrumm.com
To: CSS-Discuss Discuss css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Sent: 7/25/2014 4:59:48 AM
Subject: Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
Actually, I believe ems are based on the prior font-size of the element in
which its contained. rems are based on body.
For example, If you have a div in the body with no font-size set and a span
inside that div with font-size set to 120% then it will be 120% of the body
font-size.
However, if the div has a font-size of 110%, then the span would have a
font-size that is 120% of 110% the divs calculated font-size would be of the
body font-size.
Stay with me.. :)
Example 1:
Body font-size = 16px
div font-size = none set
span font-size (120%) = 19.2px
Example2:
Body font-size = 16px
div font-size (110%) = 17.6px
span font-size (120%) = 21.12px
Please someone correct me if I am wrong.
Well, your math is correct, but it shows that the calculated font size is
based on the span's parent font size which is the div.
Now if you had used a rem in your calculation this wouldn't have occurred
because the font size would have been base on the Root font size; that's the
definition of rem, a root-based em.
That's beauty of using rems, they are stable in that they're based on the
root font-size, but they are dynamic and relate to size changes of objects
and screens.
/* Example3: */
body {
font-size: 16px;
}
div style= font-size: 110%/div /*= 17.6 px
*/
span style= font-size: 1.2rem/span /* (1.2 * 16px) = 19.2 px */
Michael Rose
My apologies, I was speaking about ems.
Just made reference real quick to rems being the one based on the body only.
Best,
Karl DeSaulniers
Design Drumm
http://designdrumm.com
__
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/
Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
Le 25 juil. 2014 à 20:06, Karl DeSaulniers k...@designdrumm.com a écrit :
Just made reference real quick to rems being the one based on the body only.
No.
rems are not – repeat not – based on the font-size on body! They are based on
the font-size of the root element, as I note earlier in this thread. The root
element in your html document is html.
Try this:
!doctype html
style
body { font-size: .8em; }
p.a { font-size: 1em; color: red; }
p.b { font-size: 1rem; color: blue; }
/style
p class=a test - font-size: 1em specified/p
p class=b test - font-size: 1rem specified/p
Philippe
--
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.com
__
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/
Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
On Jul 25, 2014, at 6:24 AM, Philippe Wittenbergh e...@l-c-n.com wrote:
Le 25 juil. 2014 à 20:06, Karl DeSaulniers k...@designdrumm.com a écrit :
Just made reference real quick to rems being the one based on the body only.
No.
rems are not – repeat not – based on the font-size on body! They are based on
the font-size of the root element, as I note earlier in this thread. The root
element in your html document is html.
Try this:
!doctype html
style
body { font-size: .8em; }
p.a { font-size: 1em; color: red; }
p.b { font-size: 1rem; color: blue; }
/style
p class=a test - font-size: 1em specified/p
p class=b test - font-size: 1rem specified/p
Philippe
--
Philippe Wittenbergh
Correct. I should have said root.
Karl DeSaulniers
Design Drumm
http://designdrumm.com
__
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/
Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
Lack of rem support is easily taken care of with a fallback declaration using px: Font-size:16px; Font-size:1rem; This allows MOST browsers to use a relative font unit - honoring a users preference for font size - without the compounding issues (and any other) of the em. -- Tom Livingston | Senior Front-End Developer | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com __ 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/
Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Tom Livingston wrote: Lack of rem support is easily taken care of with a fallback declaration using px: Font-size:16px; Font-size:1rem; Better still, using em or %: font-size: 100%; font-size: 1rem; This allows MOST browsers to use a relative font unit - honoring a users preference for font size - without the compounding issues (and any other) of the em. -- Chris F.A. Johnson, http://cfajohnson.com __ 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/
Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson ch...@cfajohnson.com wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Tom Livingston wrote: Lack of rem support is easily taken care of with a fallback declaration using px: Font-size:16px; Font-size:1rem; Better still, using em or %: font-size: 100%; font-size: 1rem; This allows MOST browsers to use a relative font unit - honoring a users preference for font size - without the compounding issues (and any other) of the em. Why use rem at all if you are going to fall back to em? You are probably going to have to do a lot of extra coding to overcome any issues that arise should the fallback ems come into play. If you code and structure your pages without worrying about compounding issues etc, and then the ems kick in on a browser that doesn't support rems, you're most likely going to have more issues to overcome than if you fall back to pixels. -- Tom Livingston | Senior Front-End Developer | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com __ 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/
Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
This is a handle chart. http://jerekdain.com/fontconversion.html -Original Message- From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org [mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Crest Christopher Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 9:53 PM To: Tom Livingston Cc: Chris F.A. Johnson; CSS-Discuss; John Subject: Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large? A font-size of 120% is 19px, is my math correct ? Tom Livingston wrote: I don't know about golden, but it equal to the browser default which, if unchanged, is usually 16px. On Thursday, July 24, 2014, Crest Christopher crestchristop...@gmail.com mailto:crestchristop...@gmail.com wrote: Is this a golden rule, 1em = 16px ? If the math is 120 * 16 = 1920 px or rounded down as mentioned 19px, correct ? Tom Livingston wrote: On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Crest Christopher crestchristop...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','crestchristop...@gmail.com'); wrote: Now you confused me ? ems are relative to font size. Given a browser default of 16px, 1em = 16px. If you have something set at font-size: 120%;, that's 120% bigger than 16px (1em) so, like Chris said, it would be 19px (rounded down) or 1.188em; -- Tom Livingston | Senior Front-End Developer | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com http://mlinc.com __ 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/ __ 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/
[css-d] FireFox issues displaying height of div
Does anyone know of an issue with FireFox not displaying the height of a div properly? The column on the right with the blue background appears correct in IE and Chrome. For some reason the column does not extend below the link. http://advres.thehomepagestore.com/consulting_unconventional_resources.php Thanks, Richard __ 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/
Re: [css-d] FireFox issues displaying height of div
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Richard Wendrock Forum fo...@thehomepagestore.com wrote: Does anyone know of an issue with FireFox not displaying the height of a div properly? The column on the right with the blue background appears correct in IE and Chrome. For some reason the column does not extend below the link. http://advres.thehomepagestore.com/consulting_unconventional_resources.php Thanks, Richard Richard, I see no difference in the blue column height in the current versions of Chrome and Firefox in OS X 10.9.4. Best, David Laakso -- Chelsea Creek Studio http://ccstudi.com desktop | laptop | tablet | mobile __ 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/
Re: [css-d] FireFox issues displaying height of div
Richard Wendrock Forum wrote: Does anyone know of an issue with FireFox not displaying the height of a div properly? The column on the right with the blue background appears correct in IE and Chrome. For some reason the column does not extend below the link. http://advres.thehomepagestore.com/consulting_unconventional_resources.php I don't see the issue you are referring to in my browsers. Seamonkey-2.26.1 or Firefox-24.6.0 on Gentoo-Linux-x86_64 Mike __ 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/
Re: [css-d] FireFox issues displaying height of div
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Richard Wendrock Forum wrote: Does anyone know of an issue with FireFox not displaying the height of a div properly? The column on the right with the blue background appears correct in IE and Chrome. For some reason the column does not extend below the link. http://advres.thehomepagestore.com/consulting_unconventional_resources.php This is what I see: http://b.cfaj.ca/thehomepagestore.jpg -- Chris F.A. Johnson, http://cfajohnson.com __ 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/
Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
Yep this is what I have done for a long time. The support for the REM unit is now pretty much universal in modern UAs, except for bugs (one of which I found and reported on pre-IE11). And, in that case the REM unit was only being ignored for font-size. If you have to support ancient UAs than use a fixed value fallback or an EM if you don't mind the hassle that imposes. But, of course that raises the question why support ancient UAs when their usage is so low these days? :-) On July 25, 2014 at 7:39 AM Tom Livingston tom...@gmail.com wrote: Lack of rem support is easily taken care of with a fallback declaration using px: Font-size:16px; Font-size:1rem; This allows MOST browsers to use a relative font unit - honoring a users preference for font size - without the compounding issues (and any other) of the em. -- Tom Livingston | Senior Front-End Developer | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com __ 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/ __ 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/
Re: [css-d] why are ems rendering large?
I usually go px on the body and % everywhere else. Then when doing media queries, most the time all I have to adjust is the body px size and everything else sizes with it correctly. There is always some that are a little off, so then I go an adjust the % for just that one element for just that media query. Karl Sent from losPhone On Jul 25, 2014, at 4:44 PM, Eric e...@minerbits.com wrote: Yep this is what I have done for a long time. The support for the REM unit is now pretty much universal in modern UAs, except for bugs (one of which I found and reported on pre-IE11). And, in that case the REM unit was only being ignored for font-size. If you have to support ancient UAs than use a fixed value fallback or an EM if you don't mind the hassle that imposes. But, of course that raises the question why support ancient UAs when their usage is so low these days? :-) On July 25, 2014 at 7:39 AM Tom Livingston tom...@gmail.com wrote: Lack of rem support is easily taken care of with a fallback declaration using px: Font-size:16px; Font-size:1rem; This allows MOST browsers to use a relative font unit - honoring a users preference for font size - without the compounding issues (and any other) of the em. -- Tom Livingston | Senior Front-End Developer | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com __ 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/ __ 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/ __ 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/
Re: [css-d] FireFox issues displaying height of div
Le 26 juil. 2014 à 04:13, Richard Wendrock Forum fo...@thehomepagestore.com a écrit : Does anyone know of an issue with FireFox not displaying the height of a div properly? The column on the right with the blue background appears correct in IE and Chrome. For some reason the column does not extend below the link. http://advres.thehomepagestore.com/consulting_unconventional_resources.php Do you have different font-size settings in Firefox than other browsers? (I personally see no issues at default settings) Why do you lock the height of div#article (the blue box)? Remove the height declaration will certainly improve things for people who don't have the same font-size set as you… Oh, and do try your page while zooming in (text-only zoom menu item) in Firefox, or Safari. You’ll see more breakage. Philippe -- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com __ 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/
