Hello Peter,
> I think what you are looking at is the web site stylesheet.
Yep.
> The whole thing looks fine to me using the default stylesheet. On the
> web site, it looks wrong to me too. I don't know what the rationale for
> using 1.3em for <code> is, but apparently it's not working correctly.
Indeed. The idea of relative size is to be able to adjust the size for the
whole page and have everything scale accordingly... however this mostly
works well with text, but not with images. It seems that the trend is now
to specify absolute size, and to let the browser do whole page scaling as
required by the user.
> We could perhaps consider which markup style is better, but the problem
> is that it's hard to enforce either way going forward. So we need to
> find the root of the problem.
The root of the problem is the combination of relative size & nesting, so
one or the other has to be removed:
(1) don't nest in the input (patch I sent) (2) don't use relative sizes (update the web site CSS)
Otherwise there are workarounds:
(3) CSS work around "code code { font-size: 100% !important; }" (4) unnest code in the output by some postprocessing
orsome more clever transformation.
--
Fabien.
