> I think you mean em.
> A font-size for body corrects IE's resizing problem with em. It
> doesn't have to be an absolute size either. That kind of kills the
> usefulness of relative sizes.
No, I meant percentages, I didn't see any ems in the source. Percentage sizes don't have any bugs that I know of, per say. But when using percentage sizing you need a common starting point, since each percentage size is based on the font size of the parent/containing block. If there is no font size specified for the <body> or <html> elements, and all the children use percentage sizing, then it goes to the UAs default and those percentages are based on that, thus creating some inconsistency. When I loaded up this page there was a noticeable size difference between Firefox and IE which led me to that conclusion.
Personally I wouldn't worry that much about it, a good design should scale with the user's font preferences, IMHO (using percentage/em fonts and em measurements for everything else will create this type of design). But if it is bothersome specifying a font size on the <body> or <html> elements should fix it, e.g. a pixel font size (I'd avoid points, and other absolute units all together).
Absolute keyword sizing, OTOH, which I noticed at least once in the source of this project changed at some point in IE's evolution but I can't remember between which versions, and there's a new sizing algorithm for that in CSS 2.1. So CSS 1, 2 and 2.1 each specify different scaling factors for absolute font size keywords, so there's sure to be some inconsitency with older browsers there as well. (Just assuming it's an older IE on Win ME).
I saw one error in the CSS as well:
font-family: 'arial,verdana,helvetica sans-serif';
This isn't valid, no quotes are required and you're missing a comma.
Sorry for the confusion I was typing in a hurry!
Regards,
Rich
--
[
http://www.smilingsouls.net]
Mail_IMAP: A PHP/C-Client/PEAR solution for webmail
Author: Beginning CSS: Cascading Style Sheets For Web Design