X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
From: Adam Dinwoodie <Adam.Dinwoodie@metaswitch.com>
To: "cygwin@cygwin.com" <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Subject: RE: One unreadable sentence at http://cygwin.com/setup.html
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 14:19:19 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 14:19:00 +0000
Message-ID: <CE9C056E12502146A72FD81290379E9A608E3622@ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk>
References: <20130208021109.GA19883@nt1.in> <575434823.20130208141302@mtu-net.ru> <5114D3E6.2030107@towo.net> <CE9C056E12502146A72FD81290379E9A608E33AD@ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk> <20130208120428.GB6512@calimero.vinschen.de> <5114EFC6.2050605@towo.net> <20130208130305.GC6512@calimero.vinschen.de>
In-Reply-To: <20130208130305.GC6512@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id r18EJbLM009249

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb  8 13:29, Thomas Wolff wrote:
>> Am 08.02.2013 13:04, schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
>>>What would be the right fix?
>> Very weird; I can't reproduce the issue right now. When I checked
>> earlier, though, the issue was affected by the line I quoted
>> (shouldn't be, indeed, maybe a bug in Firefox) while the ".3em" line
>> does not exist in the style sheet.
>> I suggest to just remove the dot before "1em" in the "#navbar h4"
>> style, whatever its purpose might be...
>
> Done.  Can you please check if that fixed the OPs problem?

Fixed on my Google Chrome.

Although I'd argue the correct fix would be to replace the <h4>...</h4> with
<p><strong>...</strong></p>.  That makes more semantic sense to me, since that
line isn't really a header at all.

-- 
Adam Dinwoodie

Messages posted to this list are made in a personal capacity.