fantasai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Doctor Unclear wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear Fantasai,
> >
> > I just examined the
> > http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/upgrade_2.html
> > page today with MSIE 6 and I believe that content in <code> and pre.code
> > is quite small.
> > When viewed in Opera 7.54 and Mozilla 1.8a4, the font size of content of
> > <code> and pre.code is significantly bigger, relatively bigger and much
> > more readable.
> >
> > pre.code and code do not have any defined font-size in the stylesheets
> > base/content.css
> > and
> > cavendish/content.css
> >
> > I am convinced that the current size of font for <code> and pre.code is
> > predefined (default browser values) in MSIE 6, explaining why it is
> > rather small.
>
> Yes, it looks quite ridiculous. I'll look into it. :)
>
In my original email, I mentioned
"
My proposal on this:
In base/content.css:
pre.code {
overflow: auto;
margin: 1em .5em;
padding: .2em;
border: solid 1px;
font-size: 1em; /* overriding MSIE 6 default value */
}
and
code {
white-space: nowrap;
font-size: inherit; /* will inherit from parent block,
overriding MSIE 6 default value */
}
"
> > Note that right now, I'm not perfectly happy with the use of <ol
> > class="toc"> as nested list-items are awkward, not logically+visually
> > cascading. The document does not have numbered sections to begin with.
> > So, I might revert to what was designed before.
>
> If the table of contents is representing the order of sections in the
> document, then it /ought/ to be given as <ol> (ordered list) not <ul>
> (unordered list).
If the document does not number sections, then why should the toc have
numbered sections? Ordered does not necessarly mean numbered.
I could change all ol.toc to be bulleted, but I'm
> not sure how well that would work with other pages. (You aren't the
> only one who's asked for this, though.)
>
Well,
<ul class="toc"> could be defined for starters: it is mentioned in
http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/writing/markup#navigation
but not defined in
http://www.mozilla.org/css/base/content.css
> > One last issue. The document
> > Mozilla Web Author FAQ
> > http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html
> > makes use of class="htmlmarkup" and class="script"
> > (e.g.
> > <code class="script">document.all</code> and <code
> > class="script">document.layers</code>
> > <code class="htmlmarkup"><layer></code> and <code
> > class="htmlmarkup"><div></code>
> > )
> > but these classes are not (no longer?) supported for now. I think these
> > would make a good addition in linked stylesheets.
>
> What styling would you want for them? (How would it look
> different from regular <code>?)
>
Good question! I have no idea :) All I know is that referring to html
markup and javascript code is quite common in mozilla.org webpages and
I know classes (were defined?) are referenced in
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html
Take care,
DU
_______________________________________________
mozilla-documentation mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-documentation
