CSS style for
I haven't complimented our fantastic documentation lately. It is truely amazing!! Is it true for anyone else that the effective font for all the HTML enclosed in tags is somewhat smaller which in not a problem except for symbols like "^", etc.? If so would anyone consider adding a style for tags which slightly increased the font size. I see this with Firefox 3 and the latest Debian version of SeaMonkey. Thanks for reading this, Paul Scott ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CSS style for
Hi Paul, On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:14:27PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote: > I haven't complimented our fantastic documentation lately. It is truely > amazing!! Thanks! > Is it true for anyone else that the effective font for all the HTML > enclosed in tags is somewhat smaller which in not a problem > except for symbols like "^", etc.? If so would anyone consider adding a > style for tags which slightly increased the font size. > > I see this with Firefox 3 and the latest Debian version of SeaMonkey. Many browsers set the default size of monospace fonts smaller than serif and sans-serif fonts. This includes any browser with the Gecko rendering engine, which Firefox and SeaMonkey both have. The problem is that other browsers (most notably IE and Opera) do not have this particular setting. So, if we increase the font size of monospace fonts, everything enclosed in tags will be larger than the regular text! So, my best recommendation is to increase the default size of monospace fonts within your browser. -Patrick ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CSS style for
Patrick McCarty wrote: Hi Paul, On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:14:27PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote: I haven't complimented our fantastic documentation lately. It is truely amazing!! Thanks! Is it true for anyone else that the effective font for all the HTML enclosed in tags is somewhat smaller which in not a problem except for symbols like "^", etc.? If so would anyone consider adding a style for tags which slightly increased the font size. I see this with Firefox 3 and the latest Debian version of SeaMonkey. Many browsers set the default size of monospace fonts smaller than serif and sans-serif fonts. This includes any browser with the Gecko rendering engine, which Firefox and SeaMonkey both have. The problem is that other browsers (most notably IE and Opera) do not have this particular setting. So, if we increase the font size of monospace fonts, everything enclosed in tags will be larger than the regular text! So, my best recommendation is to increase the default size of monospace fonts within your browser. Thanks!! Paul ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: CSS style for
Resent from subscribed address. Patrick McCarty wrote: Hi Paul, On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:14:27PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote: I haven't complimented our fantastic documentation lately. It is truely amazing!! Thanks! Is it true for anyone else that the effective font for all the HTML enclosed in tags is somewhat smaller which in not a problem except for symbols like "^", etc.? If so would anyone consider adding a style for tags which slightly increased the font size. I see this with Firefox 3 and the latest Debian version of SeaMonkey. Many browsers set the default size of monospace fonts smaller than serif and sans-serif fonts. This includes any browser with the Gecko rendering engine, which Firefox and SeaMonkey both have. The problem is that other browsers (most notably IE and Opera) do not have this particular setting. So, if we increase the font size of monospace fonts, everything enclosed in tags will be larger than the regular text! So, my best recommendation is to increase the default size of monospace fonts within your browser. Thanks!! Paul ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: [frogs] Discourse on the Consumption of Dog Food
In message <20090204160623.ga2...@nagi>, Graham Percival writes As a cat person, I agree entirely. This is pretty much the only time in my life that I'll express agreement with the English language... being surrounded by nothing but ESL people now (and trying to teach them better English), I have newfound appreciation for what a completely stupid language English is. English isn't a silly language at all - it's what the Americans have done to it :-) Seriously, the problem is that (certainly in England), Grammar and Etymology seem almost to be forbidden subjects. Combined with the attitude of "there's no such thing as right or wrong" which seems to be prevalent among certain sections of the TEFL community (Teaching English as a Foreign Language), the result is an awful mess. I was surprised recently to discover how FEW rules it takes to pronounce English words. Given that the average person has a 20,000 word vocabulary, it apparently only takes about 30 or 40 rules for a computer speech program to *correctly* pronounce the 50,000 most common English words. The problem is all the words that have made their way into English, but are not properly anglicised. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
