I don't have a Mac, but I know Firefox, Chrome and Opera are among the
most popular browsers for the Mac. The rendering engine for these will
be the same whether PC or Mac. Can't really speak for the Mac buit-in
browser, Safari.
I tried the -2m change in Opera (on Win7), using Opera's built-in
Dragonfly web developer tool. (Almost identical to Firebug) That change
provides the same alignment as Firefox and Chrome.
I can say with some authority that the rendering rules for this tag
sequence should work the same in all modern browsers, including any
recent IE version. The only browsers I can think of that might render it
crappy are ancient IE versions like IE6 and earlier, which used a weirdo
box model. And, if it even there if it looks crappy, I guarantee it
would not look any worse than leaving it at -180px.
I agree that the -180px was intended to be -18px, (an easy typo to make)
but pixels will never align precisely with ems.
On 11/5/2014 2:16 PM, Todd Lyons wrote: > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Phillip Carroll
> <postmaster@???> wrote:
>> I used ems because most of the horizontal positioning in the chapter css is
>> specified in ems units (a generally preferred unit anyway).
>
> Agree, the rest of that css seems to be standardized on ems.
>
>> Negative 2ems aligns it with the <dd> tag of the containing <dl>, which
>> seems a reasonable thing to do.
>
> It looks very good with "-2em". It renders the same in Chrome. Can
> anybody see how it looks in a recent IE? And in whatever Mac uses for
> their browser?
>
> ...Todd
>
