Brentson: Anyway I think if you really want to minimise resource usage you can’t expect something so feature-full, anyway.
Brentson: And I don’t notice any lag on the front page so I don’t mind the CPU usage.
Scappaticci: Wasamasa: it’s the same as with any other app per se, I mean, if you load an excel workbook with 5 spreadsheets and about 300 rows in each, it will take a smaller footprint than a workbook with 200 spreadsheets and 500 rows of use in each, then again, the 200 spreadsheet workbook will also contain more valuable data than the smaller one, same goes for any app, resources wise, including webpages
Pleppo: Bprompt: oh, sure, but it doesn’t mean it’s ok to do something as edgy as including an auto-playing high-res video as backdrop for your website
Reighard: Ah that video thing you mean :O
Sottile: Wasamasa: yeap, so, the fact the cpu takes a hit on it, doesn’t necessarily mean the content is junk, or greatly useful either, yes, you could have a webpage that uses lots of junk and take up 100% of cpu threads unnecessarily and inefficiently
Lasater: Hopefully a quick question: in the W3 Spec for viewport height/width vh, vw, etc I’m ***uming ‘initial containing block’ refers to the viewport, not the parent element of a child? i.e. it always refers to the body width/height?
Lasater: Thanks for verifying bprompt
Koeninger: Lasater: that is true for vh and vw, btw, not so of other units, bear in mind that some units are relative and other absolute ones, some in reference to the containing markup element, some like vw and vh to the viewport
Lasater: Bprompt: Makes sense, I was just re-reading the spec for viewport units and their wording for ‘initial containing block’ seemed like a poor choice :
Maceda: Question: Why my footer doesn’t have the same width as the header, it missing about 20px or so. I used position relative on header and absolute on footer with width: 100% ; But I still get a scroll bar and the footer is a bit shorter
Hansis: Stormpp, Always provide a link to a *live* page or pared-down testcase so we can see the problem in action. Looking at code or images alone usually isn’t very effective. Also see paste and testcase.
Liberato: Bprompt, Romanello it’s not on live, but here is the code https://gist.github.com/anonymous/5fd2c76bfc0b5902ba33
Westerholm: Stormpp, Preferred live pastebins: http://jsfiddle.net/ • http://codepen.io/ • http://paste.asmcbain.net/
Shonka: Stormpp: we’re not seeing the actual issue, it’d be simpler if we could see what you mean
Rahm: Bprompt, http://jsfiddle.net/wLpbw964/3/
Poss: Stormpp: get rid of width: 100%; on the #head-container, bear in mind that, default box model is “content-box”, meaning, any paddings or borders are “additional” to any set width, in this case you have there padding: 10px;, meaning left and right padding are 10px+10px = 20px, PLUS a width of 100%, so the actual width of #head-container is 100% + 20px
Takach: Stormpp: but div and footer by defuault use a 100% width, and any paddings to them, are included in that value, thus
Neitzke: Bprompt, thks I will try and see what happens :
Michelet: Hm, one could use box-sizing: content-box; instead the often globally applied box-sizing: border-box?
Goodsell: For this particular element – but then the padding could ruin the layout from the outside
Goston: How I positon a list ulli of images ?
Rinehardt: The same way one positions anything else
Leibenstein: Http://pastebin.com/TzMxF6SB
Gholar: Http://pastebin.com/FTcbprBw
Macentee: I want the images on the list to be in the same line, but I wan to move them at the bottom of the first half of the screen
Vertiz: Guys why don’t my graphs align in 1 line?
Vertiz: They are both 50% 50% display inline
Tregoning: And what ever I googled I can’t find the solution
Romberger: J3r0: when you put the css/html you just nopasted into a fiddle, we can help you much better.
Larocque: But a live version is much better