2012-06-27 19:46:13 +02:00
|
|
|
#+title: CSS failings
|
|
|
|
|
#&summary
|
|
|
|
|
A travel through my past Cascading Style Sheets mistakes
|
|
|
|
|
#&
|
2013-02-08 16:47:53 +01:00
|
|
|
#+license: wtfpl
|
2012-06-27 19:46:13 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* CSS failings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once, I did not know about Cascading Style Sheets, or CSS. I knew HTML... What
|
|
|
|
|
else would there be to know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and I knew the =font= tag. It's safe to say my websites were not optimal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** px in font-size
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, my apologies for not using the em&emph unit in font-size attributes. For
|
|
|
|
|
years I have consistently used the px&emph unit when setting the sizes of
|
|
|
|
|
fonts. I recently found out how wrong this is, how an incredibly arrogant
|
|
|
|
|
offense to the universe it is, and I have begun correcting this mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it wrong, you ask? I once thought about that, because I had read
|
|
|
|
|
somewhere that it was best to use em&emph. But I didn't fully understand the
|
|
|
|
|
unit, and I certainly didn't want my precious design to be viewed differently
|
|
|
|
|
by different users! I wanted to force every user to view the exact same render
|
|
|
|
|
of my pages. This was not ill-meant; I think it originated because of general
|
|
|
|
|
browser incompabilities and was then taken to an unfortunate extreme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Essentially, it's wrong because it {forces the user to view the text in a
|
|
|
|
|
specific size}&emph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I had read that earlier on, I wouldn't have made so many px-based CSS's.
|
