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:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA224
>
>> > 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
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.
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