On 20 September 2010 16:23, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> I discussed the javascript change with Magnus, and whilst in *theory*
>> it won't affect the rest of the site, we deemed it safer to apply it
>> at a later stage, and just keep the existing gecko fixes script there
>> until the other one can be tested properly. It's only really been
>> tested against the docs, but would be included in the general site
>> header so would be loaded for every page on the site. The CSS it
>> injects affects the document container so that's the "in theory" bit.
>> But my version of the site we were using it on isn't the same as the
>> current one as it's still under development.
>>
>> Once things have died down a little from the 9.0 release, I'll coax
>> Magnus into applying that to his copy of the site and draft in people
>> to test it both on the docs and the rest of the site.
>
> Thanks. So, tomorrow? ;-)
Well, it's tomorrow as of yesterday... or something like that, and
Magnus has kindly put those changes into his version for testing:
http://magnus.webdev.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/functions-datetime.html
This includes a fix to the caution and warning box titles which were a
tad too small and pressed up against the top of the box.
> One issue I see is that we made fixed-width font size match
> proportional-width fonts in the doc javascript because we were mixing
> the two in the same paragraph. There might be cases where we don't mix
> them on the web site and might want to honor whatever size differences
> specified by the user.
Do you mean outside of the docs? If so, it shouldn't affect anything
else. If you mean within the docs, I don't think varying monospace
font sizes would look very consistent.
But the changes are up for you to see anyway so see what you think.
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
