User:The Rooster/Sandpit/10
This is a manually recovered list of building danger reports, taken from the danger report userspace, with the suburb and assorted odd reports removed from checking. This list is a few weeks old and does not contain new reports from all users, but does contain reports I have created to fix others for whatever reason as I have cleaned up the userspace.
This is the middle third (412/1236) of the reports, limited due to inclusion limits. This will be used for the BIC Status Bot, currently it serves as a one stop page to get information about the timestamp, rather than having to check each report individually.
Test Run 1: 176 (43%) reports with a timestamp more than a month old, excluding those already marked unknown. 15 unresolved timestamps.
Test Run 2: 177 (43%) reports with a timestamp more than a month old, excluding those already marked unknown. No unresolved timestamps after I manually fixed them.
Given the first 2/3 of tested reports. This suggests 588 reports in total will be outdated by at least a month.
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
User:DangerReport/Margaret General Hospital Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
User:DangerReport/Methodius General Hospital Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
Actually, yet more investigation yields the fact FF takes x-small as 10px, but IE as 10.05px AND IE appears to have a cumulative rounding error problem to boot. 90% would still just about round down but IE thinks otherwise. 85% still seems the best option for getting any level of consistency in this regard.
It appears that main.css defines a font-size of x-small. Then later another class boosts this by 127% (why 127? god knows)
Both browsers appear to take x-small as 10px on default settings. Thus render a default size of 12.7px which gets rounded to 13px. FF appears to get it right at 12.7px. IE likes 12.8px better (rounding error after so many levels?)
Whilst these both round to 13px nominally, it might explain some of differences when applying another layer inline.
For example, an additional value of 90% inline would result in 11.43 for FF, but 11.52 for IE, so FF goes for 11px and IE 12px.
In this case, scaling values can be chosen, but need merely be carefully picked to avoid values that generate these differentiating results.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. x-small * 127%
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 11px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 12px
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. 13px
User:DangerReport/Pyle Crescent School User:DangerReport/Pyncombes Auto Repair User:DangerReport/Quartly Library User:DangerReport/Ramsden Way Fire Station User:DangerReport/Rawkins Row Police Department User:DangerReport/Rawlins Row Police Department User:DangerReport/Reakes Towers User:DangerReport/Reason Towers User:DangerReport/Reginaldus Plaza Fire Station User:DangerReport/Remigius General Hospital User:DangerReport/Retallick Walk Police Department User:DangerReport/Richard General Hospital User:DangerReport/Ridge Avenue Fire Station User:DangerReport/Rillie Cinema User:DangerReport/Roadnight Towers User:DangerReport/Robertson Walk Police Department User:DangerReport/Rodges Stadium User:DangerReport/Rodman Auto Repair User:DangerReport/Rollason Towers User:DangerReport/Rounds Boulevard Police Department User:DangerReport/Runciman Towers User:DangerReport/Rundle Auto Repair User:DangerReport/Sadley Way Fire Station User:DangerReport/Sage Way Railway Station User:DangerReport/Samborne Towers User:DangerReport/Samborne Walk Police Department User:DangerReport/Sanford Towers User:DangerReport/Schreiber Drive Police Department User:DangerReport/Screech Row Police Station (Borehamwood) User:DangerReport/Sedgbeer Auto Repair User:DangerReport/Sellek Way Fire Station User:DangerReport/Servatius General Hospital User:DangerReport/Shadwick Walk Police Department User:DangerReport/Shapr Boulevard Police Department User:DangerReport/Shaw Avenue Fire Station User:DangerReport/Sheehan Lane Police Department User:DangerReport/Shipp Way School User:DangerReport/Shufflebotham Boulevard Fire Station User:DangerReport/Shyar Cinema User:DangerReport/Silverius General Hospital User:DangerReport/Silvey Towers User:DangerReport/Simplicius General Hospital User:DangerReport/Sires Boulevard Police Department User:DangerReport/Sixtus General Hospital (East Grayside) User:DangerReport/Sixtus General Hospital (Heytown) User:DangerReport/Sixtus General Hospital (Mornington) User:DangerReport/Skarin Row Police Department User:DangerReport/Sly Place Police Department User:DangerReport/Smith Towers User:DangerReport/Snaydon Walk Railway Station User:DangerReport/Snell Auto Repair User:DangerReport/Solomon Lane Police Department (Houldenbank) User:DangerReport/Somerside Drive Police Department User:DangerReport/Southall Mansion User:DangerReport/Spicer Row Police Department User:DangerReport/Spinney Alley Fire Station User:DangerReport/Sprackling Square Police Department User:DangerReport/Spry Road Police Department User:DangerReport/St. Abraham's Church User:DangerReport/St. Adrian's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Agnes's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Aidan's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Alban's Hospital (Rhodenbank) User:DangerReport/St. Alban's Hospital (Starlingtown) User:DangerReport/St. Alcuin's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Alexander's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Alfred's Hospital (Rhodenbank) User:DangerReport/St. Aloysius's Church User:DangerReport/St. Anacletus's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Andrew's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Arnold's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Barbara's Church User:DangerReport/St. Barnabas's Church (North Blythville) User:DangerReport/St. Barnabas's Church (Spracklingbank) User:DangerReport/St. Bartholomew's Hospital (Dakerstown) User:DangerReport/St. Bartholomew's Hospital (Pescodside) User:DangerReport/St. Basil's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Benedict's Hospital (Peppardville) User:DangerReport/St. Benedict's Hospital (Pitneybank) User:DangerReport/St. Benedict's Hospital (Quarlesbank) User:DangerReport/St. Birinus's Church (Huntley Heights) User:DangerReport/St. Boniface's Hospital (Tollyton) User:DangerReport/St. Bruno's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Columbanus's Hospital (Lerwill Heights) User:DangerReport/St. Columbanus's Hospital (Randallbank) User:DangerReport/St. Columbanus's Hospital (Santlerville) User:DangerReport/St. Cyril's Church User:DangerReport/St. Deusdedit's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Dionysius's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Dymphna's Church User:DangerReport/St. Egbert's Church (Barrville) User:DangerReport/St. Elisabeth's Church User:DangerReport/St. Elisabeth's Hospital (Pegton) User:DangerReport/St. Ethelbert's Hospital (Roftwood) User:DangerReport/St. Eutychian's Hospital (Darvall Heights) User:DangerReport/St. Faustina's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Ferreol's Hospital (Dartside) User:DangerReport/St. Ferreol's Hospital (Kempsterbank) User:DangerReport/St. Francis's Hospital (Miltown) User:DangerReport/St. Gall's Church (Pennville) User:DangerReport/St. George's Hospital (Greentown) User:DangerReport/St. George's Hospital (Kempsterbank) User:DangerReport/St. George's Hospital (Ridleybank) User:DangerReport/St. Gregory's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Helena's Hospital (Roachtown) User:DangerReport/St. Helier's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Henry's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Herman's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Holy's Church (Starlingtown) User:DangerReport/St. Hubertus's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Humphrey's Hospital (Old Arkham) User:DangerReport/St. Innocent's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Isidore's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Jeremy's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Joachim's Church (Huntley Heights) User:DangerReport/St. Joachim's Church (Starlingtown) User:DangerReport/St. Joachim's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. John's Cathedral User:DangerReport/St. John's Hospital (Brooksville) User:DangerReport/St. John's Hospital (Gibsonton) User:DangerReport/St. John's Hospital (Lockettside) User:DangerReport/St. Joseph's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Jude's Cathedral User:DangerReport/St. Jude's Hospital (Ridleybank) User:DangerReport/St. Julius's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Laurence's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Lazar's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Lazarus's Church (Paynterton) User:DangerReport/St. Louis's Hospital (Chancelwood) User:DangerReport/St. Louis's Hospital (Edgecombe) User:DangerReport/St. Luke's Cathedral User:DangerReport/St. Luke's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Marcus's Church (Huntley Heights) User:DangerReport/St. Margaret's Church (Wray Heights) User:DangerReport/St. Mark's Cathedral User:DangerReport/St. Mark's Hospital (Rhodenbank) User:DangerReport/St. Mark's Hospital (Richmond Hills) User:DangerReport/St. Matheos's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Matthew's Cathedral User:DangerReport/St. Matthew's Hospital (Dartside) User:DangerReport/St. Matthew's Hospital (Pegton) User:DangerReport/St. Matthew's Hospital (Santlerville) User:DangerReport/St. Matthias's Church (Dakerstown) User:DangerReport/St. Matthias's Church (Ketchelbank) User:DangerReport/St. Maurice's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Maximillian's Church (Gatcombeton) User:DangerReport/St. Maximillian's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Methodius's Church User:DangerReport/St. Ninian's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Odile's Hospital (Dunningwood) User:DangerReport/St. Osyth's Church User:DangerReport/St. Paschal's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Patrick's Church User:DangerReport/St. Patrick's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Perpetua's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Philomena's Church User:DangerReport/St. Pius's Church (Paynterton) User:DangerReport/St. Pius's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Polycarp's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Romuald's Church (Raines Hills) User:DangerReport/St. Seraphim's Hospital (Fryerbank) User:DangerReport/St. Seraphim's Hospital (Grigg Heights) User:DangerReport/St. Seraphim's Hospital (Pashenton) User:DangerReport/St. Seraphim's Hospital (Wray Heights) User:DangerReport/St. Simon's Hospital (Ridleybank) User:DangerReport/St. Siricius's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Soter's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Spyridon's Hospital (Santlerville) User:DangerReport/St. Spyridon's Hospital (Scarletwood) User:DangerReport/St. Symmachus's Church (Barrville) User:DangerReport/St. Telesphorous's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Tsarevna's Church User:DangerReport/St. Werburgh's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Wilfrid's Hospital (Barrville) User:DangerReport/St. William's Church User:DangerReport/St. Willibrord's Hospital User:DangerReport/St. Wolfeius's Church User:DangerReport/St. Wolfgang's Hospital (Grigg Heights) User:DangerReport/St. Wolfgang's Hospital (Wray Heights) User:DangerReport/Stadling Walk Police Department User:DangerReport/Standfield Towers User:DangerReport/Statham Auto Repair User:DangerReport/Stembridge Crescent Fire Station User:DangerReport/Stickling Mall User:DangerReport/Stirling Towers User:DangerReport/Stoy Avenue Fire Station User:DangerReport/Strange Bank User:DangerReport/Stranger Grove Fire Station User:DangerReport/Strutt Towers User:DangerReport/Suter Boulevard Police Department User:DangerReport/Swabey Grove Railway Station User:DangerReport/Swansborough Road Fire Station User:DangerReport/Swearse Lane Police Department User:DangerReport/Tanner Auto Repair User:DangerReport/Tarasius General Hospital (Lerwill Heights) User:DangerReport/Tarasius General Hospital (Spicer Hills) User:DangerReport/Taswell Towers User:DangerReport/Teek Boulevard Police Department User:DangerReport/Teresa General Hospital User:DangerReport/The Amos Building User:DangerReport/The Angerstein Building User:DangerReport/The Anglin Arms User:DangerReport/The Anstruther Building User:DangerReport/The Antell Building User:DangerReport/The Anthony Building User:DangerReport/The Argile Arms User:DangerReport/The Ashwin Building User:DangerReport/The Attwell Building User:DangerReport/The Axtence Building User:DangerReport/The Backer Building User:DangerReport/The Bagnall Building User:DangerReport/The Balchin Building User:DangerReport/The Barrow Building User:DangerReport/The Barstow Building User:DangerReport/The Barter Building User:DangerReport/The Barwood Building User:DangerReport/The Bascombe Building User:DangerReport/The Bath Building User:DangerReport/The Beale Building User:DangerReport/The Beater Building User:DangerReport/The Beer Building User:DangerReport/The Bellamy Building (West Grayside) User:DangerReport/The Belsten Arms User:DangerReport/The Bennett Building (Pegton) User:DangerReport/The Bentley Hotel User:DangerReport/The Beville Hotel User:DangerReport/The Bewley Building User:DangerReport/The Blackmore Building User:DangerReport/The Blocksidge Building User:DangerReport/The Boddy Motel User:DangerReport/The Bornard Building User:DangerReport/The Boulting Building User:DangerReport/The Bowell Museum User:DangerReport/The Braddick Building User:DangerReport/The Brazey Building (Buttonville) User:DangerReport/The Breay Building User:DangerReport/The Brennand Building User:DangerReport/The Bridgman Building User:DangerReport/The Brittan Building User:DangerReport/The Brockliss Building (Spicer Hills) User:DangerReport/The Browne Building User:DangerReport/The Buckett Building User:DangerReport/The Bucknall Motel User:DangerReport/The Buckrell Building User:DangerReport/The Burfield Motel User:DangerReport/The Butson Arms User:DangerReport/The Buttle Building (Dakerstown) User:DangerReport/The Button Building User:DangerReport/The Caffin Building User:DangerReport/The Canner Building User:DangerReport/The Cantle Building User:DangerReport/The Carew Museum User:DangerReport/The Carle Building User:DangerReport/The Carlyle Building User:DangerReport/The Cartwright Building User:DangerReport/The Casely Building User:DangerReport/The Catcott Building User:DangerReport/The Cater Building User:DangerReport/The Chadburn Museum User:DangerReport/The Chaffin Building User:DangerReport/The Challes Building User:DangerReport/The Cheatle Motel User:DangerReport/The Cheeke Building (Eastonwood) User:DangerReport/The Cheeke Building (Ruddlebank) User:DangerReport/The Chetham Building User:DangerReport/The Christensen Building User:DangerReport/The Chudley Building User:DangerReport/The Clatworthy Arms User:DangerReport/The Claxton Museum User:DangerReport/The Clayton Building User:DangerReport/The Clewett Building User:DangerReport/The Colglough Building User:DangerReport/The Copeland Building (West Grayside) User:DangerReport/The Cork Building User:DangerReport/The Cottrell Building User:DangerReport/The Coutts Building User:DangerReport/The Craddy Building User:DangerReport/The Craigie Building User:DangerReport/The Crampton Building User:DangerReport/The Crang Building User:DangerReport/The Craske Museum User:DangerReport/The Creek Building User:DangerReport/The Culling Building User:DangerReport/The Curme Building User:DangerReport/The Curme Building (Molebank) User:DangerReport/The Curtis Building User:DangerReport/The Custard Museum User:DangerReport/The Dafforn Building User:DangerReport/The Daniels Museum User:DangerReport/The Darnell Building User:DangerReport/The Daubeney Building User:DangerReport/The Davies Building User:DangerReport/The Delamont Building User:DangerReport/The Delay Building User:DangerReport/The Denning Museum User:DangerReport/The Denty Building User:DangerReport/The Devonshire Building (Rhodenbank) User:DangerReport/The Dewell Building User:DangerReport/The Dewes Building User:DangerReport/The Digby Building User:DangerReport/The Dirkinson Building User:DangerReport/The Dobbs Building User:DangerReport/The Dobson Motel User:DangerReport/The Donovan Building User:DangerReport/The Donovan Motel User:DangerReport/The Dooley Building User:DangerReport/The Doubting Building User:DangerReport/The Downes Building User:DangerReport/The Draper Arms User:DangerReport/The Ducat Building
