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
Le 26 avr. 2013 à 00:17, Gabriele Romanato gabriele.roman...@gmail.com 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 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
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
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk 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
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 look
Please take a look at :
http://hellenic-institute.rhul.ac.uk/research/Etheridge-development/Test/
(transcript below) and compare its appearance in IE 10
and another browser (I use Seamonkey; it will almost
certainly appear in Firefox as it does in Seamonkey,
as they use the same
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
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
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 body tag shows good in mozilla and
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 body tag
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 create
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 will
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
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 will
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
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 {/*set
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 doing
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 to
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 ;)
__
css-discuss
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
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
From: Ron Koster r...@psymon.com
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
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 a
Bobby Jack wrote:
From: Ron Koster r...@psymon.com
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
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 least
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
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%.
...have
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
some use 101% in body with ems
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
some
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 { /*
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 --
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
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
prior.
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
Can anyone tell me why periodically i come across a site that uses:
body { font-size: 100.1%; }
or:
body { font-size: 76.6%; }
What browser are they trying to appease here?
--
Michael
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall
be well
- Julian of Norwich 1342 -
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:
Hey Folks,
Am wondering if someone has any info on this for me.
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
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. EMs
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.
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:100.01%;
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;
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 a
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.
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?
-nick
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]
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
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]
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?
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 to text
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
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
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?
-nick
It is the
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
54 matches
Mail list logo
