acroyear: (makes sense)
Joe's Ancient Jottings ([personal profile] acroyear) wrote2008-12-19 10:23 am
Entry tags:

[identity profile] acroyear70.livejournal.com 2008-12-19 03:34 pm (UTC)(link)
ok, i gave up on "75%" and just did the scaling numbers myself.

[identity profile] acroyear70.livejournal.com 2008-12-19 03:36 pm (UTC)(link)
nearest I can think is that CSS standards are screwy or changed on me. width and height in an img tag in the good old days was width and height of the image. Now in CSS, it's a setting that sets it relative to its parent tag, or if nothing is fixed in the box it is in (a table cell, for example), then relative to the browser's whole window.

*some* things were easier once...