Re: [css-d] font-size smaller on IE 8 [error correction]

> "Pseudo scientific gibberish"? Where/what/how? > > I am not able to speak for the OP. However, considering he is has a little language barrier problem (no offense intended), I'd think that an open, honest, direct, and specific answer to his question might be appropriate. And nursing him

Re: [css-d] font-size smaller on IE 8 [error correction]

On 2009/12/28 00:05 (GMT-0500) David Laakso composed: > David Hucklesby wrote: >> Further to Felix's good advice to stick to 2 decimal places in >> "em" sizes (so no fractions of 1%)... >> I find I get the most consistent results from using these percentages, >> which scale quite well. For examp

Re: [css-d] Need Footer to always go to bottom

On 12/27/09 8:03 PM, J.M. Knowles wrote: > Probably an easy way to do this that I am spacing on - but how do I get > my footer http://www.rodolfflaw.com/test2015/ to always align to the > bottom of the page regardless of how big the window is set at? Try this: HTML ... ... CSS html, b

Re: [css-d] font-size smaller on IE 8 [error correction]

David Hucklesby wrote: > > Further to Felix's good advice to stick to 2 decimal places in > "em" sizes (so no fractions of 1%)... > > I find I get the most consistent results from using these percentages, > which scale quite well. For example, if font-size of 82% gives 13px, > then 5em will very li

Re: [css-d] font-size smaller on IE 8 [error correction]

On 12/27/09 11:04 AM, Felix Miata wrote: > On 2009/12/27 18:06 (GMT) MEM composed: > >> Sorry to bother again with this issue... > >> If we stay with 1em, all fonts size will be equal. However, if we >> do less then 1em, (no matter what value I suppose) we just get >> inconsistent results. I know t

[css-d] Need Footer to always go to bottom

Probably an easy way to do this that I am spacing on - but how do I get my footer http://www.rodolfflaw.com/test2015/ to always align to the bottom of the page regardless of how big the window is set at? __ css-discuss [cs...@lis

Re: [css-d] font-size smaller on IE 8 [error correction]

MEM wrote: > > > > > @David > I will deal with IE6 later on the process. OK. > > > It's bad because the user should have the possibility to freely choose which > font size he/she wants and the site structure should behave. Is this what > you and Felix where talking about? If so, could we induce

Re: [css-d] font-size smaller on IE 8 [error correction]

> Look at http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/Font/font-rounding.html in each of > your > installed browsers and you may see that more than two significant > digits to > em font-sizes are an invitation for inconsistent results. If you stick > to two > significant digits and take what you learn from that URL i

Re: [css-d] font-size smaller on IE 8 [error correction]

MEM wrote: > > > > Any advice regarding this issue? > http://www.chequedejeuner.nuvemk.com/educa.infantil/associar > > > > > Márcio > > > Marcio, If I open one of your pages in IE/8 and the open the same page in Firefox and veiw them adjacent to each other the pixel height of the text bloc

Re: [css-d] font-size smaller on IE 8 [error correction]

On 2009/12/27 18:06 (GMT) MEM composed: > Sorry to bother again with this issue... > If we stay with 1em, all fonts size will be equal. > However, if we do less then 1em, (no matter what value I suppose) we just > get inconsistent results. > I know the browsers should not look exactly equal, tha

Re: [css-d] nested list -> horizontal stacked

> > I have a nested list, > > http://www.sfu.ca/~jdbates/tmp/css/200912230/ > > > > I want the first level list items to display as a horizontal, gray > > stripe > > > > I want to hide the second level list items, except children of the first > > le

Re: [css-d] font-size smaller on IE 8 [error correction]

Hello all, Sorry to bother again with this issue... If we stay with 1em, all fonts size will be equal. However, if we do less then 1em, (no matter what value I suppose) we just get inconsistent results. I know the browsers should not look exactly equal, that's the own nature of browsers but, at