This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Webmaster forum > March 2007 > Styles question?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| Does the style information have to be in the <head> </head> area?
That is where I most often see it when it is not in an external file.
I am asking because I want to use a style on a page that I cannot have it in
the <head></head> area since the website isn't mine
but I can edit a part of it for myself. =)
I know I could put it in an external file and link it that way but I would
rather not.
Heidi
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-03-26, 7:21 pm |
| On Mar 26, 4:36 pm, "Heidi" <blackc...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
> Does the style information have to be in the <head> </head> area?
>
> That is where I most often see it when it is not in an external file.
>
> I am asking because I want to use a style on a page that I cannot have it in
> the <head></head> area since the website isn't mine
> but I can edit a part of it for myself. =)
>
> I know I could put it in an external file and link it that way but I would
> rather not.
>
> Heidi
Not if you want it to validate.
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-03-26, 7:21 pm |
| Heidi wrote:
> Does the style information have to be in the <head> </head> area?
The <style> and <link> elements are only valid within the <head>
element. Although some browsers may *support* them appearing in other
places, they don't have to.
If you can't change the contents of the <head> element, and if you don't
mind some people not seeing your pretty designs, then you could always
use Javascript to add the stylesheet to the <head> after the page has
loaded. Perhaps not the best way of doing it, but I'm struggling to
think of a better way given the restrictions.
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
|
| SpaceGirl wrote:
: Not if you want it to validate.
Hmm not sure that matters in this case...
I just want to know if it would work or not if not in the proper place.
| |
|
| Dylan Parry wrote:
: Heidi wrote:
:
:: Does the style information have to be in the <head> </head> area?
:
: The <style> and <link> elements are only valid within the <head>
: element. Although some browsers may *support* them appearing in other
: places, they don't have to.
:
: If you can't change the contents of the <head> element, and if you
: don't mind some people not seeing your pretty designs, then you could
always
: use Javascript to add the stylesheet to the <head> after the page has
: loaded. Perhaps not the best way of doing it, but I'm struggling to
: think of a better way given the restrictions.
You think my designs are pretty? *blush* LOL
hmmm based on the site terms that might get me in trouble...
I will have to read them again to be sure...
Thanks for the tip. =)
Maybe I should just lose the styles completely... although that would be
annoying :p
Heidi
| |
|
| Heidi wrote:
> Maybe I should just lose the styles completely... although that would be
> annoying :p
Or you could use inline styles - might be a lot of work though,
especially when you decide you want something changed afterwards.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| John.Pleasanton@gmail.com 2007-03-26, 7:21 pm |
| On Mar 26, 7:36 am, "Heidi" <blackc...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
> Does the style information have to be in the <head> </head> area?
>
> That is where I most often see it when it is not in an external file.
>
> I am asking because I want to use a style on a page that I cannot have it in
> the <head></head> area since the website isn't mine
> but I can edit a part of it for myself. =)
>
> I know I could put it in an external file and link it that way but I would
> rather not.
>
> Heidi
Style could be put in any tag, eg <div style="...."></div>
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-03-26, 7:21 pm |
| Heidi wrote:
> hmmm based on the site terms that might get me in trouble...
> I will have to read them again to be sure...
Is this for EBay, by any chance? :)
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
| Karl Groves 2007-03-26, 7:21 pm |
| "Heidi" <blackcat2@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in
news:4607da82$0$17157$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
> Does the style information have to be in the <head> </head> area?
>
> That is where I most often see it when it is not in an external file.
>
> I am asking because I want to use a style on a page that I cannot have
> it in the <head></head> area since the website isn't mine
> but I can edit a part of it for myself. =)
>
> I know I could put it in an external file and link it that way but I
> would rather not.
>
The HTML Recommendation says that <style> goes in <head>
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/presen...html#edef-STYLE
On a practical level, things differ. During code review of client sites, I
have seen <style> within <body> and the declarations worked, though this is
generally bad form and YMMV as far as whether it actually works for you
(esp. cross browser)
--
Karl Groves
http://www.thehotrodclassifieds.com
| |
|
| Dylan Parry wrote:
: Heidi wrote:
:
:: hmmm based on the site terms that might get me in trouble...
:: I will have to read them again to be sure...
:
: Is this for EBay, by any chance? :)
Gee how'd ya know? :p
Yes it is as a matter of fact... =)
Heidi
| |
|
| Els wrote:
: Heidi wrote:
:
:: Maybe I should just lose the styles completely... although that
:: would be annoying :p
:
: Or you could use inline styles - might be a lot of work though,
: especially when you decide you want something changed afterwards.
Thanks Els, I will look into that...
might be a lot of work but if it keeps me out of hot water by violating
certain terms I will be good with it. =)
Heidi
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-03-26, 7:21 pm |
| Heidi wrote:
> : Is this for EBay, by any chance? :)
>
> Gee how'd ya know? :p
Call it a hunch <g>
> Yes it is as a matter of fact... =)
In which case, I wouldn't worry about just sticking with inline styles,
as Els suggests. It's unlikely that you'll want to change the styles
once you've put the adverts up, so I doubt it really matters in the
styles are all inline.
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
| Andy Dingley 2007-03-26, 7:21 pm |
| On 26 Mar, 16:36, "Heidi" <blackc...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
> Does the style information have to be in the <head> </head> area?
<style> can only appear there, for valid HTML code.
CSS itself can go anywhere, as you can inline it on elements in a
style attribute. You can't access pseudo-element selectors this way
though, so can't use it for a:hover effects.
A <style> element in the <body> is invalid, but usually seems to work.
It's a well-known hack for CMS that don't allow you to modify <head>.
<link> elements also can only be placed in <head>, for linking
external CSS into a HTML document (also <style> with @import). The CSS
itself can be generated separately though, so you can still retain day-
to-day "control" over CSS on a site where you can't gain control of
<head> contents.
| |
| Matt Probert 2007-03-26, 7:21 pm |
| On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:36:48 -0600, "Heidi" <blackcat2@XXXXXXXXXX>
wrote:
>Does the style information have to be in the <head> </head> area?
>
>That is where I most often see it when it is not in an external file.
>
>I am asking because I want to use a style on a page that I cannot have it in
>the <head></head> area since the website isn't mine
>but I can edit a part of it for myself. =)
>
>I know I could put it in an external file and link it that way but I would
>rather not.
>
>Heidi
>
Yes.
For example:
<p style="color:red; text-align:left;">Test Text</p>
I'll not get involved in arguments about validation, and morality. It
works and that's good enough for me <bg>
Matt
--
Documenting the banal to the bizarre
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
| |
|
|
Well I did a test putting the style information in the body...
IE, Opera, and Firefox all display it properly...
Problem is though having it that way would alter the main sites tags too
right?
For example from my code:
P {
FONT-SIZE: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif
}
Would having that in the body override their CSS settings? That could get me
into a bit of hot water if it did perhaps.
Heidi
| |
| Chris F.A. Johnson 2007-03-26, 7:22 pm |
| On 2007-03-26, Heidi wrote:
>
> Well I did a test putting the style information in the body...
> IE, Opera, and Firefox all display it properly...
>
> Problem is though having it that way would alter the main sites tags too
> right?
>
> For example from my code:
> P {
> FONT-SIZE: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif
> }
>
> Would having that in the body override their CSS settings? That could get me
> into a bit of hot water if it did perhaps.
If my browser displayed that as you requested it, it would be too
small for me to read. My browser (Firefox) will enlarge it to the
minimum size I allow, which could break your page design. It may or
may not still be readable.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ========
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
| |
| Heidi 2007-03-26, 11:18 pm |
| Okay for the ones I already did making them inline would be a massive
pain.=)
So for those I just changed the CSS removing anything that could be
duplicated by the main site:
<STYLE type=text/css>
..main { FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif }
..navbar {
FONT-SIZE: 9pt; BORDER-BOTTOM-COLOR: #AB8E64; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: solid;
BORDER-TOP-COLOR: #AB8E64; TEXT-ALIGN: center; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: solid
}
</STYLE>
It will also be in the <body> tags but I found out it shows up equally well
in Firefox, Opera, and IE. Of course in IE it shows the best but is workable
in the other two.
I realize the navbar area is a bit small but I am trying to figure out the
best way to do it without it being huge in IE which messes up the layout.
Any pointers for how to make it larger in firefox and opera only most
welcome. =)
in IE it looks just fine.
Heidi
| |
| Heidi 2007-03-26, 11:18 pm |
| Heidi wrote:
: Okay for the ones I already did making them inline would be a massive
: pain.=)
:
: So for those I just changed the CSS removing anything that could be
: duplicated by the main site:
:
: <STYLE type=text/css>
: .main { FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
: sans-serif }
: .navbar {
: FONT-SIZE: 9pt; BORDER-BOTTOM-COLOR: #AB8E64; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: solid;
: BORDER-TOP-COLOR: #AB8E64; TEXT-ALIGN: center; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: solid
: }
: </STYLE>
:
: Any pointers for how to make it larger in firefox and opera only most
: welcome. =)
:
: in IE it looks just fine.
:
: Heidi
Nevermind, I googled firefox specific css and found a hack that works. The
new style looks like this:
<STYLE type=text/css>
..main { FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif }
..navbar {
FONT-SIZE: 9pt; BORDER-BOTTOM-COLOR: #AB8E64; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: solid;
BORDER-TOP-COLOR: #AB8E64; TEXT-ALIGN: center; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: solid
}
html>body .navbar {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; BORDER-BOTTOM-COLOR: #AB8E64; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: solid;
BORDER-TOP-COLOR: #AB8E64; TEXT-ALIGN: center; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: solid
}
</STYLE>
IE does indeed ignore the second command but neither firefox or opera do as
my testing showed me. =)
Heidi
| |
| Chris F.A. Johnson 2007-03-27, 7:17 am |
| On 2007-03-27, Heidi wrote:
> Heidi wrote:
>: Okay for the ones I already did making them inline would be a massive
>: pain.=)
>:
>: So for those I just changed the CSS removing anything that could be
>: duplicated by the main site:
>:
>: <STYLE type=text/css>
>: .main { FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
>: sans-serif }
Barely legible; use "font-size: 1em".
>: .navbar {
>: FONT-SIZE: 9pt; BORDER-BOTTOM-COLOR: #AB8E64; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: solid;
>: BORDER-TOP-COLOR: #AB8E64; TEXT-ALIGN: center; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: solid
>: }
Illegible; use "font-size: .56em". It'll still be hard to read.
don't go below ~.8em.
>: </STYLE>
>:
>: Any pointers for how to make it larger in firefox and opera only most
>: welcome. =)
Don't use pt or px sizes.
>: in IE it looks just fine.
Do it properly and you don't need to worry whether it's IE or FF
or anything else.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ========
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
| |
| Heidi 2007-03-27, 11:24 pm |
| Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
: On 2007-03-27, Heidi wrote:
:: Heidi wrote:
::: Okay for the ones I already did making them inline would be a
::: massive pain.=)
:::
::: So for those I just changed the CSS removing anything that could be
::: duplicated by the main site:
:::
::: <STYLE type=text/css>
::: .main { FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
::: sans-serif }
:
: Barely legible; use "font-size: 1em".
I can read it just fine...
::: .navbar {
::: FONT-SIZE: 9pt; BORDER-BOTTOM-COLOR: #AB8E64; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: solid;
::: BORDER-TOP-COLOR: #AB8E64; TEXT-ALIGN: center; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE:
solid
::: }
:
: Illegible; use "font-size: .56em". It'll still be hard to read.
: don't go below ~.8em.
Really? then how can I read it?
::: </STYLE>
:::
::: Any pointers for how to make it larger in firefox and opera only
::: most welcome. =)
:
: Don't use pt or px sizes.
Well I already figured out how to make it look larger in ff and opera but
not IE so thanks anyway..
::: in IE it looks just fine.
:
: Do it properly and you don't need to worry whether it's IE or FF
: or anything else.
It isn't that simple in this case... thanks for being nice...
| |
|
| Heidi wrote:
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>: Barely legible; use "font-size: 1em".
>
> I can read it just fine...
>: Illegible; use "font-size: .56em". It'll still be hard to read.
>: don't go below ~.8em.
>
> Really? then how can I read it?
Either/and/or:
- your eyes are better
- your monitor is larger
- your monitor has a lower resolution setting
- your contrast settings differ from Chris' settings
>: Do it properly and you don't need to worry whether it's IE or FF
>: or anything else.
>
> It isn't that simple in this case... thanks for being nice...
Doing it right doesn't mean the stylesheet separate or in the head,
but giving the font-size in ems or % (even more important than giving
them a decent size), as in pixels and points, IE visitors can't make
the text larger if they need to.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| Andy Dingley 2007-03-27, 11:24 pm |
| On 27 Mar, 15:20, "Heidi" <blackc...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
> ::: <STYLE type=text/css>
> ::: .main { FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
> ::: sans-serif }
> :
> : Barely legible; use "font-size: 1em".
>
> I can read it just fine...
Then you don't understand the concept of "publishing"
It's not about whether you can read it, it's about whether other
people can read it too. You don't (and can't) know how many pixels or
points they need to make legible text, but you do know how many ems
they need - 1.
Exactly 1em is your best guess as being perfectly sized for large
blocks of text. 0.8em is OK for "small". Anything under 0.66em is
likely to be unreadable.
| |
| GreyWyvern 2007-03-27, 11:25 pm |
| And lo, Els didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
> Doing it right doesn't mean the stylesheet separate or in the head,
> but giving the font-size in ems or % (even more important than giving
> them a decent size), as in pixels and points, IE visitors can't make
> the text larger if they need to.
That's pre-IE7 IE visitors; IE7 can zoom. I'll be glad when all these
pixel/point based font size issues are done away with. It was such a
silly argument anyway, keeping authors from using accurate font sizes
because one browser had an accessibility bug.
Personally, I've switched to using pixel font-sizes in all my new
projects. For those who are fanatically concerned about their font-size
accessibility, they should be using a browser which supports zooming. At
the very least they should upgrade from IE6.
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#search - Orca Search: Full-featured
spider and site-search engine
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-03-27, 11:25 pm |
| On Mar 27, 4:09 pm, GreyWyvern <s...@greywyvern.com> wrote:
> And lo, Els didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
>
>
> That's pre-IE7 IE visitors; IE7 can zoom. I'll be glad when all these
> pixel/point based font size issues are done away with. It was such a
> silly argument anyway, keeping authors from using accurate font sizes
> because one browser had an accessibility bug.
>
> Personally, I've switched to using pixel font-sizes in all my new
> projects. For those who are fanatically concerned about their font-size
> accessibility, they should be using a browser which supports zooming. At
> the very least they should upgrade from IE6.
>
> Grey
I totally agree. We use pixel fonts and don't dictate what the end
user MUST have installed. They can use whatever browser they care for,
the will be able to get to the content one way or another (or in the
case of Flash, be told to use Flash or our RSS feeds or something). We
generally use Flash for scalable content, px fonts for Web pages.
| |
|
| GreyWyvern wrote:
> And lo, Els didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
>
>
> That's pre-IE7 IE visitors; IE7 can zoom. I'll be glad when all these
> pixel/point based font size issues are done away with. It was such a
> silly argument anyway, keeping authors from using accurate font sizes
> because one browser had an accessibility bug.
>
> Personally, I've switched to using pixel font-sizes in all my new
> projects. For those who are fanatically concerned about their font-size
> accessibility, they should be using a browser which supports zooming. At
> the very least they should upgrade from IE6.
I thought there were still Windows versions that can't upgrade to IE7?
I hate IE7's zoom function btw. I much prefer text zoom, as it only
makes the text larger, and not the entire page. What good is zooming
in if you then need to use the horizontal scrollbar to read full
sentences?
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-03-27, 11:25 pm |
| GreyWyvern wrote:
> That's pre-IE7 IE visitors; IE7 can zoom. I'll be glad when all these
> pixel/point based font size issues are done away with. It was such a
> silly argument anyway, keeping authors from using accurate font sizes
> because one browser had an accessibility bug.
I'm quite surprised to see this from you. I completely agree with the
sentiment, just never really bothered to voice it before. It's such a
pain, arsing about with layouts that break when the user scales fonts
just because you've used 'em' or percentages. Pixels are nice in that
respect, especially when you're using a browser that allows you to
resize the fonts either way, and the layouts don't suddenly explode.
The problem for me would be adjusting to using pixels again after so
many years steering clear of them!
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
| GreyWyvern 2007-03-27, 11:25 pm |
| And lo, Els didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
> GreyWyvern wrote:
>
>
> I thought there were still Windows versions that can't upgrade to IE7?
Pretty much everything besides XP, IIRC.
> I hate IE7's zoom function btw. I much prefer text zoom, as it only
> makes the text larger, and not the entire page.
If that's what you like, you're in luck! Firefox still uses text zoom,
and it even works on text sized in pixels.
> What good is zooming
> in if you then need to use the horizontal scrollbar to read full
> sentences?
If you don't like horizontal scrollbars when zooming the whole page,
you're in luck! Opera comes with the fit-to-width function. Just zoom
and press Ctrl+F11 and bye-bye scrollbars.
See, we *can* all be happy :) Strictly using relative font size units is
an argument hinging almost entirely upon the fact that IE6 and previous
could not resize text for accessibility reasons if the font-size was
specified in absolute units. Aside from matters of personal viewing
taste, there is no other concrete reason beyond that. It doesn't make
sense, at least to me, to hold on to the practice now that IE6 is dying.
I'm probably dropping it a bit on the early side, but I hate arriving late
to a party ;)
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#search - Orca Search: Full-featured
spider and site-search engine
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-03-27, 11:25 pm |
| Els wrote:
> I thought there were still Windows versions that can't upgrade to IE7?
The problem here is at what point do you stop supporting something? IE7
is available for PCs running XP and up (inc. WS2003).
(Almost) Ten years is a *very* long time with regards computing, and I'd
say that supporting Windows 98 now is probably just too much work. With
regards Windows 2000, although this is now only 7 years old, it's still
pretty old and I should imagine that the only people running it are
running businesses that either require legacy software support or are
merely too stingy to upgrade.
FWIW I no longer offer any support for <=IE5.5 (or NS4) and don't test
anything in these versions. IE5 is also ten years old (ish), so it
should be of no surprise that I don't care about people still using it.
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
|
| GreyWyvern wrote:
> And lo, Els didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
[color=darkred]
>
> If that's what you like, you're in luck! Firefox still uses text zoom,
> and it even works on text sized in pixels.
> If you don't like horizontal scrollbars when zooming the whole page,
> you're in luck! Opera comes with the fit-to-width function. Just zoom
> and press Ctrl+F11 and bye-bye scrollbars.
>
> See, we *can* all be happy :) Strictly using relative font size units is
> an argument hinging almost entirely upon the fact that IE6 and previous
> could not resize text for accessibility reasons if the font-size was
> specified in absolute units. Aside from matters of personal viewing
> taste, there is no other concrete reason beyond that. It doesn't make
> sense, at least to me, to hold on to the practice now that IE6 is dying.
I can see your point, but really - what has changed with the release
of IE7? Firefox has been available to everybody on every platform long
enough, and Opera has had the zoom options quite a while too.
Everybody who can now switch away from IE6, could have done so long
before IE7 arrived.
> I'm probably dropping it a bit on the early side, but I hate arriving late
> to a party ;)
I prefer to wait till the party has taken off - eliminating the chance
I'm waiting for it in the wrong place ;-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-03-27, 11:25 pm |
| Els wrote:
> I prefer to wait till the party has taken off - eliminating the chance
> I'm waiting for it in the wrong place ;-)
Heh - you need some erm... Dutch courage :P
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
|
| Dylan Parry wrote:
> It's such a
> pain, arsing about with layouts that break when the user scales fonts
> just because you've used 'em' or percentages. Pixels are nice in that
> respect, especially when you're using a browser that allows you to
> resize the fonts either way, and the layouts don't suddenly explode.
Not sure if I understand you correctly - if I'm using Firefox with
pixel fonts - it still doesn't resize containers if I resize text? I
reckon it still breaks the layout, unless you are using the page zoom,
not the text resize, but Firefox doesn't have a zoom function afaik.
> The problem for me would be adjusting to using pixels again after so
> many years steering clear of them!
Isn't that as easy as replacing 100% with 14px, and 80% with eh..
(4/5*14)px ?
But, you'll still need to cater for the different text sizes in your
design, as people can still have their minimum font-size set to 16
pixels, which will break your 14 pixel font-size based layout? :-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
|
| Dylan Parry wrote:
> Els wrote:
>
>
> Heh - you need some erm... Dutch courage :P
Right - not only waiting in the wrong place, but getting drunk alone
too? <g>
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-03-27, 11:25 pm |
| Els wrote:
>
> Isn't that as easy as replacing 100% with 14px, and 80% with eh..
> (4/5*14)px ?
Yes, it would be *that* easy. It's just the mindset that would have to
change! At first I forced myself to type % instead of px, but I would be
reversing that if I decided to use pixels instead. It would be like
trying to learn to write with my left hand <g>
> But, you'll still need to cater for the different text sizes in your
> design, as people can still have their minimum font-size set to 16
> pixels, which will break your 14 pixel font-size based layout? :-)
Of course; but I'd probably never use such a small font in the first
place - except in things like copyright statements etc.
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-03-27, 11:25 pm |
| On Mar 27, 4:35 pm, Els <els.aNOS...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>
> I can see your point, but really - what has changed with the release
> of IE7? Firefox has been available to everybody on every platform long
> enough, and Opera has had the zoom options quite a while too.
It was release via Windows update. FireFox and Opera weren't.
> Everybody who can now switch away from IE6, could have done so long
> before IE7 arrived.
That's not really true. There was noone forcing you to update to
FireFox, but you are effectively forced to IE7 if you are a Windows
user (it's an automatic update)... not to mention folks who put Vista
on their machines have no choice (you can't remove IE7).
| |
| Terry 2007-03-28, 11:18 pm |
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> On Mar 27, 4:35 pm, Els <els.aNOS...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> That's not really true. There was noone forcing you to update to
> FireFox, but you are effectively forced to IE7 if you are a Windows
> user (it's an automatic update)... not to mention folks who put Vista
> on their machines have no choice (you can't remove IE7).
>
I was prompted on auto update and turned down IE7. I did not feel forced
to IE7. Perhaps people who desire to <g>get along</g> did feel forced.
--
TK
Still Having a Ball
http://wejuggle2.com/
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|