- From: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:35:45 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jon Rimmer <jon.rimmer@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
Yep, that's what I get letting our print designers loose on web designs ;) Interestingly, I've learned a lot from the fact that I work with a bunch of classically trained print designers, and am responsible for turning their approach into something the web can handle :) On 10 Jan 2012, at 18:44, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Jon Rimmer <jon.rimmer@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10 January 2012 17:23, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Jon Rimmer <jon.rimmer@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I played around with the example, and even removing padding completely >>>> on the list items, I couldn't seem to get them all on one line with >>>> the default font. The font sizes are just too different. >>> >>> That's curious. It worked great for me. >>> >>> ~TJ >> >> I dunno, this is what I see: >> >> http://www.brillskills.com/img/with-font.png >> http://www.brillskills.com/img/no-font.png >> >> Are you sure you didn't accidentally disable the 125%/1.3 size >> declaration in the font property when you removed the MelbourneRegular >> reference? > > Whoops, that's exactly what I did. Yeah, when I keep that set > correctly, the text is just too wide in the system sans-serif. Dang. > > (Note that your result is because the <li>s are still set to > display:inline, so they're all put together inside of a single > table-cell or flexbox item. If you turn off that line or set them to > display:block or list-item, they'll stay on one line, but they'll all > run together and slightly overflow.) > > So yeah, Matthew, your example does indeed need more than what I > thought. Your font is so narrow!
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2012 22:17:38 UTC