Closed anoblet closed 7 months ago
Path | Size |
---|---|
packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/cxl-ui.js | 74.41 KB (+0.02% 🔺) |
packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/cxl-ui-jwplayer.js | 11.89 KB (0%) |
packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/cxl-ui-playbooks.js | 30.98 KB (0%) |
packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/vendor.js | 140.5 KB (0%) |
packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/cxl-ui-jwplayer.js, packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/cxl-ui-playbooks.js, packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/cxl-ui.js, packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/manifest.js, packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/unresolved.js, packages/cxl-ui/pkg/dist-web/vendor.js | 258.93 KB (+0.01% 🔺) |
@anoblet ping
Although it may seem like more of a magic number, right: calc(27.5% - 200px);
displays better across all sizes. The rational behind it was the middle ground between 1/4, and 1/3 minus half of the image width.
Although it may seem like more of a magic number,
right: calc(27.5% - 200px);
displays better across all sizes. The rational behind it was the middle ground between 1/4, and 1/3 minus half of the image width.
What about the option of JS inline style calculations based on actual image size?
Although it may seem like more of a magic number,
right: calc(27.5% - 200px);
displays better across all sizes. The rational behind it was the middle ground between 1/4, and 1/3 minus half of the image width.What about the option of JS inline style calculations based on actual image size?
It'd be perfect but this is suppose to be a quick task. We don't want to spend on it more than we already did. Proposed solution is going live.
It'd be perfect but this is suppose to be a quick task. We don't want to spend on it more than we already did. Proposed solution is going live.
What exactly was spent here? Majority of the time it's been sitting waiting for review. This «giving up» style is a sure way to build into tech debt.
https://app.clickup.com/t/86b00z797