As opposed to what? I had a reason. I don't remember what it was.
Probably Netscape support.
Up until the punching, it was a real nice party.
Kaylee ,'Shindig'
Buffistas Building a Better Board
Do you have problems, concerns or recommendations about the technical side of the Phoenix? Air them here. Compliments also welcome.
P.M. Marc - Jan 19, 2005 7:06:03 am PST #9352 of 10000
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear
Jon B. - Jan 19, 2005 7:11:59 am PST #9353 of 10000
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
I think you're right. Looking at that Wiki, while they tend to recommend the "Ems and Percentages" approach, it's the px approach that is most consistant between browsers.
Am-Chau Yarkona - Jan 19, 2005 7:15:35 am PST #9354 of 10000
I bop to Wittgenstein. -- Nutty
I don't know if this helps with the speccing out or not, but for record, I'm in favour of being able to change both the font and the size; what Verdana looks good at is not Times New Roman's optimal size, etc.
P.M. Marc - Jan 19, 2005 7:15:50 am PST #9355 of 10000
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear
I think you're right. Looking at that Wiki, while they tend to recommend the "Ems and Percentages" approach, it's the px approach that is most consistant between browsers.
Have I mentioned lately how much I hate that CSS support across browsers is such a crapshoot?
§ ita § - Jan 19, 2005 7:20:32 am PST #9356 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I was just reading the section on style sheet switching, and then it got to the point of lack of support and then I cried.
Okay -- where are we:
- minimal (don't specify font -- anything else?)
- stealth (lose colours, images?)
- large (increase font sizes by how much?)
- small (drop font sizes by how much?)
- ho (no whitefont)
amych - Jan 19, 2005 7:20:33 am PST #9357 of 10000
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
As opposed to what?
Ems are ideal for accessibility (and would take out the need for smaller and larger styles), but harder to make the page look just right.
Even if you stick with px for the body text, it's a simple matter to make everything else a percentage relative to that.
(Which, looking up-thread, faster typists have already said.)
amych - Jan 19, 2005 7:24:02 am PST #9358 of 10000
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
Have I mentioned lately how much I hate that CSS support across browsers is such a crapshoot?
t hands Plei a soothing tableless layout that has been tested in 10 browsers on 3 OSes
dcp - Jan 20, 2005 2:31:29 pm PST #9359 of 10000
The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.
Something a little odd. I just did a refresh of the index page, and the "Firefly Spoilers" thread appeared at the top with a message count but without the number of new messages.
Wolfram - Jan 20, 2005 5:51:48 pm PST #9360 of 10000
Visilurking
I made the same mistake in book club. At some point (threadsuck this thread to see when) all the threads ate some funny code which caused one new post per thread to contain the same number as the previous post. So if there had been no posts in FF spoilers in awhile that would be what caused it to move to the top with no apparent new post. Or something like that.
dcp - Jan 20, 2005 6:02:37 pm PST #9361 of 10000
The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.
There actually was a new (and unread) post, and thus the jump to the top of the thread list was correct, but the usual "# new" part of the description was missing.
eta: Aha! Now I see it. The new post did indeed get the same post number as the previous post, so it was new by date but not by number.