Quick links to various main topics in my blog

YHM two screenshots, one IE (which obviously doesn't work) and one Firefox 1.0.4, which at least has symbols, but they don't make a lot of sense to me.

Interestingly, IE ignores my request to view in a larger font (Firefox doesn't, though). Do you use absolute font sizes?

:bu:

Asterix (or the authors thereof) extends this usage with little pictograms of skulls, thunderclouds, shaking fists etc. and is a classic example of how something potentially offensive can be expressed in a comical manner.(Standardized Curse Symbols)

It'll not work if the browser doesn't have Unicode support, or if it doesn't have an appropriate font for that code page installed.

I was considering the possibility of adding a CWBUM tag such as [expletive] (or more likely [fuck], [shit], [piss], etc) which could be replaced on the fly by an appropriate UniCode string of characters. You'd still get all the satisfaction of typing the word 'fuck' (and so on), but it'd be rendered differently a la Asterix.

--
simon

Relative font-sizes are a nightmare - different browsers inherit differently in the HTML structure and base things on different default sizes.

This causes problems if you use percentage sizing, or ems, or relative named sizes - medium, small, smaller. Compare small with 12px fixed size - wouldn't you think 12px was more of a medium size for text? It used to be, back in the days of 72ppi. But you have to use 16 pixels if your monitor is 96ppi to get the same physical size as 12px on a 72ppi screen.

We currently use 11px for body text on this site.

--
simon

also interesting that FF overrides it but IE won't.

so I am guessing the FF screenshot i mailed you was not the right code page.. since it's not the blistering blue barnacles type of punctuation-outburst you'd expect?

Great idea, by the way... i thoroughly approve :)

:bu:

Er..

:bu:

and yes. Probably. Or something else. Hard to say what the state of support on various platforms is.
--
simon

--
simon

--
bombholio