20 Oct
2014
20 Oct
'14
2:45 p.m.
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 17:32:53 -0400
"E. Liddell" <ejlddll(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 21:10:41 -0500
"Timothy Pearson" <kb9vqf(a)pearsoncomputing.net> wrote:
Never mind, found a fix, although I'm not entirely happy with it.
The revised site style is now on webdev, for those who have access.
Tim, due to the rearrangement of the page's geometry, your "donate!"
link has shifted out of place. I'll fix that later.
E. Liddell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
OK, let's go with the CSS3 shadow and get opinions from others on the list
regarding this design. If the consensus is that the new site is better
then we'll put it into production.
There may be a problem with the stylesheet on screens where the main
text area is shorter than the sidebar. I'm trying to figure out a fix. > Hi,
>
> Visually, I have no problem with either using the provided false
shadow or the CSS3 one. What it does
>when it is displayed in Konq-error? Does it make Konq go crazy or it is
just not shown.
Konqueror just ignores the style instruction, because it's limited to
CSS2.
So the screenshot appears with no shadow (and a little bit of extra
whitespace
below it). In other words, it's harmless and downgrades gracefully.
E. Liddell
Hi,
Well, it's okay for me to have the CSS3 shadow if it is harmless for
Konqueror. These little adjustments improves a lot the website and I think
that these changes are ready to go to production. What do you think?
Thank you!
-Alexandre