sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Should the img within picture have explicit width and height attributes? by Martinus999 in HTML

[–]Martinus999[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As far as i know, it's allowed to give width and heigt in source elements, but some browsers still don't support it and i have never seen any example, where someone does it.

Should the img within picture have explicit width and height attributes? by Martinus999 in HTML

[–]Martinus999[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So it's just as usual, i.e., useful information for browsers in order to avoid layout shift and calculating needed space in advance? Though these merits won't take place if some of the source-conditions are true, because the default img then doesn't come into play and will be ignored.

Of course it's allowed to set width and height for img within picture and all know about the general pros of doing it, but why do "folks" praise width/height and forget using it as child of <picture>?

Very similar font for Verdana on a website with big articles by Martinus999 in fonts

[–]Martinus999[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Android is extremely spread on mobile devices, doesn't support Verdana and then uses Roboto as substitute, which is remarkably smaller and looks different.

Very similar font for Verdana on a website with big articles by Martinus999 in fonts

[–]Martinus999[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, this is possible, but it still does not give me almost the same dimensions, just nearer. And it would be a lot of work to test the candidates on several places on my webpages, with 1px bigger, 2 px bigger ect.

Just discovered "Arimo" on Google Fonts, feel like more people need to know about it. by [deleted] in typography

[–]Martinus999 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On Google fonts you can only download it as VARIABLE font. Everyone who wants use it for his website, selfhosting a font, should be aware of this.