«

In the following code, the space between the empty.gif and the letter
N is about 6 px in Firefox, and about 12 in EI7 (that's the closest I
can measure using a ruler tool). What would have to do to make it the
same in both browsers?

<li style="margin-top:-47px;margin-left:561px;"><a
href="sound.html"><img src="empty.gif" style="border:none;" /></a>
<ul>
<li style="position:relative;top:-248px;left:2px;">S</li>
<li style="position:relative;top:-264px;left:-1px;">O</li>
<li style="position:relative;top:-280px;">U</li>
<li style="position:relative;top:-300px;">N</li>
</ul>
</li>

On 2008-06-23, alice wrote:
> In the following code, the space between the empty.gif and the letter
> N is about 6 px in Firefox, and about 12 in EI7 (that's the closest I
> can measure using a ruler tool). What would have to do to make it the
> same in both browsers?
>
><li style="margin-top:-47px;margin-left:561px;"><a
> href="sound.html"><img src="empty.gif" style="border:none;" /></a>
><ul>
><li style="position:relative;top:-248px;left:2px;">S</li>
><li style="position:relative;top:-264px;left:-1px;">O</li>
><li style="position:relative;top:-280px;">U</li>
><li style="position:relative;top:-300px;">N</li>
></ul>
></li>

First, validate your HTML (http://validator.w3.org/).
If you still have problems, post the URL here.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

alice wrote:
> In the following code, the space between the empty.gif and the letter
> N is about 6 px in Firefox, and about 12 in EI7 (that's the closest I
> can measure using a ruler tool). What would have to do to make it the
> same in both browsers?

How many times has it been said that pixel-perfect layouts are doomed to
fail? A couple pixels don't really matter in the scheme of things, and
chances are you'll never get it the same across all of the major browsers.

> <li style="margin-top:-47px;margin-left:561px;"><a
> href="sound.html"><img src="empty.gif" style="border:none;" /></a>
> <ul>
> <li style="position:relative;top:-248px;left:2px;">S</li>
> <li style="position:relative;top:-264px;left:-1px;">O</li>
> <li style="position:relative;top:-280px;">U</li>
> <li style="position:relative;top:-300px;">N</li>
> </ul>
> </li>

Do you even know what position:relative really does? Or what this looks
like at varying text sizes? I can't imagine this is the best way to do
whatever it is you're trying to accomplish.

Post a URL.

--
Berg

On Jun 23, 2:50*pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.com> wrote:
> How many times has it been said that pixel-perfect layouts are doomed to
> fail?

My guess would be about 1/10th the number of times there have been a
successful pixel-perfect site...

> A couple pixels don't really matter in the scheme of things, and
> chances are you'll never get it the same across all of the major browsers..

The same? maybe not, close enought to the same that no one would
notice, probalby so. Pixel perfect sites created by competent
professionals look fine in all but extreme circumstances . (And yes,
based on what I know of you I would categorize you as being in that
group)

For examples of fixed width pixel-perfect sites that look the same in
all the popular browsers please see virtually any fortune 500 website.

> Do you even know what position:relative really does?

They probably don't.

> Or what this looks like at varying text sizes?

Agan they probably never checked.

> I can't imagine this is the best way to do
> whatever it is you're trying to accomplish.

Your probably right.

> Post a URL.

The anticipation is killing me...

On Jun 22, 10:12*pm, alice <al...@fearofdolls.com> wrote:
> In the following code...

Posting the code is meaningless as your error may be in the code you
did not post. Post a URL so we can see EXACTLY what you are doing.