I just looked at a site I’m developing in IE 8 using Netrender and it looks
like an 18-car pile up…very not pretty. IE 9, 10, 11 appear to draw the page
the way other browsers do.
Is IE8 a browser of concern anymore, IOW, should I work hard to fix whatever is
messing up my site in IE8, or will
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:50 PM, John j...@coffeeonmars.com wrote:
I just looked at a site I’m developing in IE 8 using Netrender and it looks
like an 18-car pile up…very not pretty. IE 9, 10, 11 appear to draw the page
the way other browsers do.
Is IE8 a browser of concern anymore, IOW,
Are you loading an html5shiv or modernizr? Could be the problem if you aren't...
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:50 PM, John j...@coffeeonmars.com wrote:
I just looked at a site I’m developing in IE 8 using Netrender and it looks
like an 18-car pile up…very not pretty. IE 9, 10, 11 appear to draw
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Tim Arnold tim.arn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:50 PM, John j...@coffeeonmars.com wrote:
I just looked at a site I’m developing in IE 8 using Netrender and it looks
like an 18-car pile up…very not pretty. IE 9, 10, 11 appear to draw the page
On Sep 16, 2014, at 1:01 PM, Tom Livingston tom...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you loading an html5shiv or modernizr? Could be the problem if you aren't…
Remy Sharp Shiv yes; modernizr, no…do I need both?
J
__
css-discuss
On Sep 16, 2014, at 12:59 PM, Tim Arnold tim.arn...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm guessing the pile-up is due to using REMs for layout (or
anything). IE8 doesn't know what to do with a REM.
This is so weird…I spend about an hour or two converting all my ems to rems to
combat a parent/child % type size
No, you don't need modernizr too.
IMHO It's well worth adding the px fallback instead of converting rems
to ems. You'll still avoid the compounding issue you get with ems, and
you'll gain a decent layout in IE8.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:09 PM, John j...@coffeeonmars.com wrote:
On Sep 16,
On Sep 16, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Tom Livingston tom...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO It's well worth adding the px fallback instead
the px fallback being to add
font-size: 16px;
font-size: 1rem;
to my css up at the top, right? Does this also set 1rem equal to 16px?
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:16 PM, John j...@coffeeonmars.com wrote:
On Sep 16, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Tom Livingston tom...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO It's well worth adding the px fallback instead
the px fallback being to add
font-size: 16px;
font-size: 1rem;
to my css up at the top, right?
On Sep 16, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Tom Livingston tom...@gmail.com wrote:
the px fallback being to add
font-size: 16px;
font-size: 1rem;
to my css up at the top, right? Does this also set 1rem equal to 16px?
No no. For each use of rem, you need to add a px fallback. The above
was just an
Correct.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:25 PM, John j...@coffeeonmars.com wrote:
On Sep 16, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Tom Livingston tom...@gmail.com wrote:
the px fallback being to add
font-size: 16px;
font-size: 1rem;
to my css up at the top, right? Does this also set 1rem equal to 16px?
No no.
John wrote:
Does this also set 1rem equal to 16px?
John, /you/ (the page author) cannot set 1 rem to anything;
the size of the root em (rem) is determined by each user,
through the user interface to his/her preferred browser.
In many cases, this will be the browser default, which /may/
be
12 matches
Mail list logo
