4 ms·
It's hard to say since the gp didn't specify what they thought was broken. The overall layout is fairly odd & weird - but it's the same in Chrome & Firefox. Th
by lucideer 1mo ago
It's hard to say since the gp didn't specify what they thought was broken.
The overall layout is fairly odd & weird - but it's the same in Chrome & Firefox. There is one technical bug with the main body font-size - it uses some invalid syntax (should be invalid in both Chrome & Firefox) & Chrome seems to be accepting it (against spec). The rule:
font-size: clamp( 1.125rem, 1.125rem + (1.333rem - 1.125rem) * (100dvw - 24rem) / (80rem - 24rem), 1.333rem );
Firefox drops it & falls back to the default body font, making the article text slightly smaller. But it's definitely not a layout-breaking bug.
- yurishimo 1mo agoWhats wrong with the font size exactly? Im not a desktop to check it but its look fine? A bit unusual but I wouldn’t say a clamp with a bunch of math is invalid.
- lucideer 1mo agofor me it's just a slight reduction in the font size due to firefox ignoring the above - which doesn't seem enough of a difference to warrant folk calling it outright "broken" It's entirely possible I'm misreading the spec on clamp() but as far as I understood it, clamp() performs math on a bunch of comma separated fixed values, calc() handles arithmetic operators - this seems to be combining those without a calc invocation, but maybe I misread & overlooked clamp arithmetic operators. Firefox just says it's invalid, no detail on why.