Web team, any thoughts on the CSS details?
On 3/4/17 02:00, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> 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 or some more
> clever transformation.
>
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
