On 7/22/10 7:13 AM, tee wrote:
On Jul 21, 2010, at 7:43 AM, David Hucklesby wrote:
With all due respect, I suggest you are attempting to control the
uncontrollable far too finely. 0.9em is either one or two pixels
smaller than default, depending on the rounding applied by the
browser. In othe
On Jul 21, 2010, at 7:43 AM, David Hucklesby wrote:
>
> With all due respect, I suggest you are attempting to control the
> uncontrollable far too finely. 0.9em is either one or two pixels smaller
> than default, depending on the rounding applied by the browser. In other
> words, you are alread
On 2010/07/21 11:47 (GMT-0400) agerasimc...@unioncentral.com composed:
> I agree - I usually set just the body font for something like 95%, and
> then the container font for 1em
> Is that a good solution?
Almost. 95% on body is telling users they've screwed up choosing their
browsers' defaul
UNIFI Information Technology
agerasimc...@unioncentral.com
(513) 595 -2391
David Hucklesby
Sent by: li...@webstandardsgroup.org
07/21/2010 10:52 AM
Please respond to
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
To
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
cc
Subject
Re: [WSG] ems versus pixels
On 7/20/10 9:58 PM, tee
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:58 PM, tee wrote:
>
> On Jul 20, 2010, at 7:10 PM, Mathew Robertson wrote:
>
> On 21 July 2010 11:52, tee wrote:
>>
>> EM can fail miserably in below senario for IEs for p, li and span tags due
>> to inheritance making them very tiny and unable to get consistence font s
On 7/20/10 9:58 PM, tee wrote:
On Jul 20, 2010, at 7:10 PM, Mathew Robertson wrote:
On 21 July 2010 11:52, tee mailto:weblis...@gmail.com>> wrote:
EM can fail miserably in below senario for IEs for p, li and span
tags due to inheritance making them very tiny and unable to get
consistence font
On Jul 20, 2010, at 7:10 PM, Mathew Robertson wrote:
> On 21 July 2010 11:52, tee wrote:
> EM can fail miserably in below senario for IEs for p, li and span tags due to
> inheritance making them very tiny and unable to get consistence font size for
> one block of content in different browsers
Yup. Check out http://nican.com.au/
On 21/7/2010 1:25 AM, David Laakso wrote:
Foskett, Mike wrote:
Has anyone on the list considered using keywords?
Mike Foskett
Has anyone conceived of a layout for the page using percent, em, /and/
pixel width, with the fonts specified in percen
On 21 July 2010 11:52, tee wrote:
> EM can fail miserably in below senario for IEs for p, li and span tags due
> to inheritance making them very tiny and unable to get consistence font size
> for one block of content in different browsers not just the IE.
>
> body {font-size: 100.1%}
> p, li {fon
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:52 PM, tee wrote:
> I used to use EM only for font size, something I learned from this list. It
> was time when you are new, you have no your opinion and know nothing about
> exception that some fine ivory tower idea cannot withstand real world
> practise but followed
EM can fail miserably in below senario for IEs for p, li and span tags due to
inheritance making them very tiny and unable to get consistence font size for
one block of content in different browsers not just the IE.
body {font-size: 100.1%}
p, li {font-size: 0.95em}
span {font-size: 0.9em}
xxx
David Hucklesby wrote:
On 7/20/10 8:25 AM, David Laakso wrote:
Foskett, Mike wrote:
Has anyone on the list considered using keywords?
Mike Foskett
Has anyone conceived of a layout for the page using percent, em,
/and/ pixel width, with the fonts specified in percent [ or em ] :-)
?
Best, ~d
On 7/20/10 8:25 AM, David Laakso wrote:
Foskett, Mike wrote:
Has anyone on the list considered using keywords?
Mike Foskett
Has anyone conceived of a layout for the page using percent, em,
/and/ pixel width, with the fonts specified in percent [ or em ] :-)
?
Best, ~d
Eric seems to have do
ology
agerasimc...@unioncentral.com
(513) 595 -2391
Sent by: li...@webstandardsgroup.org
07/20/2010 11:34 AM
Please respond to
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
To
cc
Subject
RE: [WSG] ems versus pixels
The basic plan that I follow is to use % for structural items, which
generally need
On 2010/07/20 09:53 (GMT-0400) agerasimc...@unioncentral.com composed:
> I've been converting some of our company public-facing static web-sites
> from pixels to ems for layout and font-size.
> But just recently I encountered several references that pixels are getting
> back into popularity - "a
The basic plan that I follow is to use % for structural items, which generally
need to be proportional to other structural items, and ultimately the viewport
itself.
Then, pixels purely for borders and images,
And EMs only for text.
Margins and padding can be either pixels, EMs or % depending on
Foskett, Mike wrote:
Has anyone on the list considered using keywords?
Mike Foskett
Has anyone conceived of a layout for the page using percent, em, /and/
pixel width, with the fonts specified in percent [ or em ] :-) ?
Best,
~d
--
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/
*
http://websemantics.co.uk/
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Phil Archer
Sent: 20 July 2010 15:31
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] ems versus pixels
I must offer a contrary view to Edward!
Any page
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:59 AM, David Laakso
wrote:
> Points is the way to go nowadays :-) .
>
> Best,
> ~d
I think picas is the way to go ;)
here are some resources on the use of Ems vs Pixels
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/wiki/Using_Font_Size
which links to these two additional pages
http
sage-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Laakso
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 11:00 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] ems versus pixels
Phil Archer wrote:
> Ems are proportional to the size of text you're using
Phil Archer wrote:
Ems are proportional to the size of text you're using - and that's
generally the thing you want to be proportional to.
Phil.
Edward Lynn wrote:
get much better x-browser control with px's and so that is
the direction im moving in
Ed
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 2:53 PM, wro
I actually think this is a really interesting, key area of current web
development, how about we add some links to resources putting either
argument forward?
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
> I must offer a contrary view to Edward!
>
> Any page that requires a user with norma
I must offer a contrary view to Edward!
Any page that requires a user with normal vision to have to zoom on any
device is, in my view, a sign of a really badly designed page on a
really smart device.
Pixels can be regarded as a proportional measure since pixel density
varies between screens.
Modern browsers now implement page zoom, and so using ems for me is becoming
unnecessary. I get much better x-browser control with px's and so that is
the direction im moving in
Ed
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 2:53 PM, wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been converting some of our company public-facing static
Hi,
I've been converting some of our company public-facing static web-sites
from pixels to ems for layout and font-size.
But just recently I encountered several references that pixels are getting
back into popularity - "as it offers absolute control over text", and
that most browsers now can r
25 matches
Mail list logo
