Thom Brown wrote:
> On 7 September 2010 22:20, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Thom Brown wrote:
> >> On 7 September 2010 20:26, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> > Thom Brown writes:
> >> >> Sorry, I should have clarified. ?There are boxes containing notes
> >> >> which I had originally coloured yellow, but we wen
On 7 September 2010 22:20, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 7 September 2010 20:26, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Thom Brown writes:
>> >> Sorry, I should have clarified. ?There are boxes containing notes
>> >> which I had originally coloured yellow, but we went for beige instead.
>> >> ?Ex
Thom Brown wrote:
> On 7 September 2010 20:26, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Thom Brown writes:
> >> Sorry, I should have clarified. ?There are boxes containing notes
> >> which I had originally coloured yellow, but we went for beige instead.
> >> ?Example appears on:
> >> http://pgweb.darkixion.com:8081/d
On 7 September 2010 22:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> The Caution looks good to me. I'd still take the Notes down another
> notch, but certainly we're getting into personal preference now.
Okay, adjusted it a bit more so that should do now.
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
R
Thom Brown writes:
> On 7 September 2010 20:26, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, I always think of beige as being mostly brown ... this is more
>> mostly yellow. Personally I'd like this color for blocks,
>> and something intermediate between this and gray for s. The
>> current setup seems to use the s
On 7 September 2010 20:26, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> Sorry, I should have clarified. There are boxes containing notes
>> which I had originally coloured yellow, but we went for beige instead.
>> Example appears on:
>> http://pgweb.darkixion.com:8081/docs/9.0/static/ddl-priv.html
>
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 7 September 2010 20:58, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> On 7 September 2010 20:28, Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
> Sorry, I should have clarified. The
On 7 September 2010 20:58, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 7 September 2010 20:28, Dave Page wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
Sorry, I should have clarified. There are boxes containing notes
which I had originally
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 7 September 2010 20:28, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> Sorry, I should have clarified. There are boxes containing notes
>>> which I had originally coloured yellow, but we went for beige instead.
>>
On 7 September 2010 20:28, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> Sorry, I should have clarified. There are boxes containing notes
>> which I had originally coloured yellow, but we went for beige instead.
>> Example appears on:
>> http://pgweb.darkixion.com:8081
On 7 September 2010 20:26, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> Sorry, I should have clarified. There are boxes containing notes
>> which I had originally coloured yellow, but we went for beige instead.
>> Example appears on:
>> http://pgweb.darkixion.com:8081/docs/9.0/static/ddl-priv.html
>
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
> Sorry, I should have clarified. There are boxes containing notes
> which I had originally coloured yellow, but we went for beige instead.
> Example appears on:
> http://pgweb.darkixion.com:8081/docs/9.0/static/ddl-priv.html
Apologies for not k
Thom Brown writes:
> Sorry, I should have clarified. There are boxes containing notes
> which I had originally coloured yellow, but we went for beige instead.
> Example appears on:
> http://pgweb.darkixion.com:8081/docs/9.0/static/ddl-priv.html
Hmm, I always think of beige as being mostly brown
Thom Brown wrote:
> There are boxes containing notes which I had originally coloured
> yellow, but we went for beige instead. Example appears on:
> http://pgweb.darkixion.com:8081/docs/9.0/static/ddl-priv.html
Oh, *those* notes. Got it.
As I recall, Tom felt that the yellow was too much of
On 7 September 2010 19:42, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> The notes section still looks really drab on my screen.
>
> Are you talking about the Release Notes page:
>
> http://pgweb.darkixion.com:8081/docs/8.4/static/release.html
>
> notes for a major release:
>
> http://pgweb.dark
Thom Brown wrote:
> The notes section still looks really drab on my screen.
Are you talking about the Release Notes page:
http://pgweb.darkixion.com:8081/docs/8.4/static/release.html
notes for a major release:
http://pgweb.darkixion.com:8081/docs/8.4/static/release-8-4.html
or notes fo
On 7 September 2010 18:12, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I just noticed that the text size links in the upper right corner
> don't seem to work.
I think you're imagining things, Kevin. (in other words, I've fixed it
because it wasn't present in the new version of the site)
The notes section still look
Thom Brown wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> The only thing I found a little distracting with the current
>> layout is that on some pages the horizontal lines for the section
>> and subsection are very close together. If the lines for
>> subsections were less imposing, it would probably help.
On 6 September 2010 15:54, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> Anymore feedback/suggestions? Anything not look right? Are we there
>> yet?
>
> The only thing I found a little distracting with the current layout
> is that on some pages the horizontal lines for the section and
> subsecti
Thom Brown wrote:
> Anymore feedback/suggestions? Anything not look right? Are we there
> yet?
The only thing I found a little distracting with the current layout
is that on some pages the horizontal lines for the section and
subsection are very close together. If the lines for subsections
we
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 14:45, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 21:46, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié sep 01 16:39:54 -0400 2010:
>>> On 1 September 2010 21:34, Alvaro Herrera
>>> wrote:
>>> > Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié sep 01 16:22:22 -0
On 1 September 2010 21:46, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié sep 01 16:39:54 -0400 2010:
>> On 1 September 2010 21:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> > Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié sep 01 16:22:22 -0400 2010:
>> >
>> >> I'm coming round to the idea that if w
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié sep 01 16:39:54 -0400 2010:
> On 1 September 2010 21:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié sep 01 16:22:22 -0400 2010:
> >
> >> I'm coming round to the idea that if we wanted such a table of
> >> contents, we'd generate it
On 1 September 2010 21:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié sep 01 16:22:22 -0400 2010:
>
>> I'm coming round to the idea that if we wanted such a table of
>> contents, we'd generate it on the page when building the docs rather
>> than running some ECMAScript. I'v
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié sep 01 16:22:22 -0400 2010:
> I'm coming round to the idea that if we wanted such a table of
> contents, we'd generate it on the page when building the docs rather
> than running some ECMAScript. I've already got a basic contents thing
> showing on my ver
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 22:22, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 18:26, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 13:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
>>> > On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 11:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> >> As an example, do you think that anyone trying t
On 1 September 2010 18:26, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 13:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
>> > On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 11:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> As an example, do you think that anyone trying to read one of these
>> >> pages on a cell-phone-sized s
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 13:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> > On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 11:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> As an example, do you think that anyone trying to read one of these
> >> pages on a cell-phone-sized screen is going to thank you for taking up
> >> some of hi
"Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 11:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As an example, do you think that anyone trying to read one of these
>> pages on a cell-phone-sized screen is going to thank you for taking up
>> some of his screen with this?
> Not anymore than all the other stuff o
On 1 September 2010 17:16, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 11:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Thom Brown writes:
>> > I've added an experimental content navigation menu (appears in
>> > top-right-hand corner) which jumps to sections of the same page. It
>> > only appears on pages whi
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 11:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
> > On 1 September 2010 16:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hmmm ... that's potentially useful, but I really really dislike the way
> >> that the button hangs there despite scrolling. It's intrusive and it
> >> absolutely screams "wo
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 11:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
> > I've added an experimental content navigation menu (appears in
> > top-right-hand corner) which jumps to sections of the same page. It
> > only appears on pages which have items to navigate to, including the
> > main inde
On 1 September 2010 16:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> On 1 September 2010 16:03, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Hmmm ... that's potentially useful, but I really really dislike the way
>>> that the button hangs there despite scrolling. It's intrusive and it
>>> absolutely screams "won't work i
Thom Brown writes:
> On 1 September 2010 16:03, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmmm ... that's potentially useful, but I really really dislike the way
>> that the button hangs there despite scrolling. It's intrusive and it
>> absolutely screams "won't work in all browsers". Can't it just be a
>> button or
On 1 September 2010 16:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> I've added an experimental content navigation menu (appears in
>> top-right-hand corner) which jumps to sections of the same page. It
>> only appears on pages which have items to navigate to, including the
>> main index.
>
> Hmmm
Thom Brown writes:
> I've added an experimental content navigation menu (appears in
> top-right-hand corner) which jumps to sections of the same page. It
> only appears on pages which have items to navigate to, including the
> main index.
Hmmm ... that's potentially useful, but I really really d
On 1 September 2010 15:06, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 15:00, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Thom Brown wrote:
>>
>>> I've added an experimental content navigation menu (appears in
>>> top-right-hand corner) which jumps to sections of the same page.
>>> It only appears on pages which have
On 1 September 2010 15:00, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> I've added an experimental content navigation menu (appears in
>> top-right-hand corner) which jumps to sections of the same page.
>> It only appears on pages which have items to navigate to,
>> including the main index.
>
Thom Brown wrote:
> I've added an experimental content navigation menu (appears in
> top-right-hand corner) which jumps to sections of the same page.
> It only appears on pages which have items to navigate to,
> including the main index.
I don't feel strongly about this feature one way or ano
On 1 September 2010 14:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> I should also point out that someone I showed this to said that the
>> blue text I've used for function names throughout could make the text
>> be mistaken for a link. Comments?
>
> Please, please, please, do NOT go there. Rando
On 1 September 2010 09:39, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 09:36, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 31 August 2010 21:59, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> Thom Brown wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>
> I found some sample code the is supposed to work in all browers.
> I tested it in Firefox
Thom Brown writes:
> I should also point out that someone I showed this to said that the
> blue text I've used for function names throughout could make the text
> be mistaken for a link. Comments?
Please, please, please, do NOT go there. Randomly coloring different
pieces of text is not unobtru
On 1 September 2010 09:36, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 31 August 2010 21:59, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Thom Brown wrote:
>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
I found some sample code the is supposed to work in all browers.
I tested it in Firefox and it worked. It should work in Opera
and IE as
On 31 August 2010 21:59, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>>> I found some sample code the is supposed to work in all browers.
>>> I tested it in Firefox and it worked. It should work in Opera
>>> and IE as well. HTML/Javascript file attached.
>>
>> Thanks Br
Thom Brown wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I found some sample code the is supposed to work in all browers.
>> I tested it in Firefox and it worked. It should work in Opera
>> and IE as well. HTML/Javascript file attached.
>
> Thanks Bruce. I've implemented your recommended change. :)
L
On 31 August 2010 21:16, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Thom Brown wrote:
>> > On 31 August 2010 18:45, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > > Thom Brown wrote:
>> > >> >> But the benefit of the javascript hack was that we weren't setting a
>> > >> >> base font size for everything, we just b
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
> > On 31 August 2010 18:45, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Thom Brown wrote:
> > >> >> But the benefit of the javascript hack was that we weren't setting a
> > >> >> base font size for everything, we just bump up the relative font size
> > >> >> for elements w
Thom Brown wrote:
> On 31 August 2010 18:45, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Thom Brown wrote:
> >> >> But the benefit of the javascript hack was that we weren't setting a
> >> >> base font size for everything, we just bump up the relative font size
> >> >> for elements which are monospaced by default.
>
On 31 August 2010 18:45, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> >> But the benefit of the javascript hack was that we weren't setting a
>> >> base font size for everything, we just bump up the relative font size
>> >> for elements which are monospaced by default.
>> >>
>> >> There's pros and
Thom Brown wrote:
> >> But the benefit of the javascript hack was that we weren't setting a
> >> base font size for everything, we just bump up the relative font size
> >> for elements which are monospaced by default.
> >>
> >> There's pros and cons to both approaches. ?I'm not sure which one you
>
On 31 August 2010 18:37, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> In a way I am. Users have the ability (although not often exercised)
>> to change the default font and size. I gave the HTML tag a font-size,
>> so that anything under it would be based on that. We use relative
>> font sizes i
Thom Brown wrote:
> In a way I am. Users have the ability (although not often exercised)
> to change the default font and size. I gave the HTML tag a font-size,
> so that anything under it would be based on that. We use relative
> font sizes in our CSS, which means usually we'd be proportional t
On 31 August 2010 17:57, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
>> On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 12:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> There's a reason why it was done that way before ...
>
>> There is no reason to do that. Every browser has the ability to override
>> font settings. If the user has acces
On 31 August 2010 17:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> On 31 August 2010 17:14, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Thom Brown writes:
Now the font sizes should be virtually the same in all browsers.
>>>
>>> That seems pretty unfriendly from an accessibility standpoint.
>
>> Maybe, but the only
Thom Brown wrote:
Thom Brown writes:
> Now the font sizes should be virtually the same in all
> browsers.
That looked good in Firefox and Konqueror on my kubuntu machine.
> Okay, I've added a slightly modified version of that in (was
> missing in the new version of the site), r
"Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 12:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There's a reason why it was done that way before ...
> There is no reason to do that. Every browser has the ability to override
> font settings. If the user has accessibility issues, they have the
> ability to deal
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 12:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Thom Brown writes:
> > > On 31 August 2010 17:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Thom Brown writes:
> > >>> Now the font sizes should be virtually the same in all browsers.
> > >>
> > >> That seems pretty unfriendly from an
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 12:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
> > On 31 August 2010 17:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Thom Brown writes:
> >>> Now the font sizes should be virtually the same in all browsers.
> >>
> >> That seems pretty unfriendly from an accessibility standpoint.
>
> > May
On 29 August 2010 20:27, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> Okay, I've made a couple other changes, but if it's not working
>> now, I don't think it's supported. This page suggests that
>> box-shadow isn't yet supported by KHTML:
>> http://www.legendscrolls.co.uk/webstandards/khtml
>
Thom Brown writes:
> Well that was a pain. Didn't realise there was a special hacky CSS
> file to fix fonts for gecko and webkit browsers. We use javascript to
> add it in on the current documentation, which is a nasty hack (try
> disabling javascript and look at our docs in Firefox, Chrome or
>
On 31 August 2010 17:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> Well that was a pain. Didn't realise there was a special hacky CSS
>> file to fix fonts for gecko and webkit browsers. We use javascript to
>> add it in on the current documentation, which is a nasty hack (try
>> disabling javascr
Thom Brown writes:
> On 31 August 2010 17:14, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Thom Brown writes:
>>> Now the font sizes should be virtually the same in all browsers.
>>
>> That seems pretty unfriendly from an accessibility standpoint.
> Maybe, but the only alternative is to copy the current site's javascri
On 30 August 2010 18:09, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of dom ago 29 14:56:47 -0400 2010:
>
>> Okay, it appears there's also a KHTML engine setting for pre-CSS3
>> support. I've added that in now for rounded corners and shadows. Any
>> different?
>
> You know you can
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of dom ago 29 14:56:47 -0400 2010:
> Okay, it appears there's also a KHTML engine setting for pre-CSS3
> support. I've added that in now for rounded corners and shadows. Any
> different?
You know you can try these things in http://browsershots.org, right?
--
Thom Brown wrote:
> Okay, I've made a couple other changes, but if it's not working
> now, I don't think it's supported. This page suggests that
> box-shadow isn't yet supported by KHTML:
> http://www.legendscrolls.co.uk/webstandards/khtml
No shadows in Konqueror.
> I've just tested it in O
On 29 August 2010 19:39, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> And Kevin, I made the shadows a bit lighter in this version and
>> used the beige notes box.
>
> For my taste, that's perfect. (Now there's the trivial matter of
> making everyone else happy. ;-) )
>
> The rounded corners a
Thom Brown wrote:
> And Kevin, I made the shadows a bit lighter in this version and
> used the beige notes box.
For my taste, that's perfect. (Now there's the trivial matter of
making everyone else happy. ;-) )
The rounded corners and shadows aren't showing up in Konqueror, but
everything
Thom Brown wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> The rounded corners and shadows aren't showing up in Konqueror
> Okay, it appears there's also a KHTML engine setting for pre-CSS3
> support. I've added that in now for rounded corners and shadows.
> Any different?
Konqueror now shows rounded co
On 29 August 2010 20:02, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
>>> The rounded corners and shadows aren't showing up in Konqueror
>
>> Okay, it appears there's also a KHTML engine setting for pre-CSS3
>> support. I've added that in now for rounded corners and shad
On 29 August 2010 17:46, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> The only change is the addition of very light shadowing (for Dave
>> and Kevin)
>
> Sorry for sounding picky, but can the shadowing be even lighter? It
> seems a tad heavy next to the light gray in the boxes.
Okay, I've sto
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_ixion/4937010683/sizes/o/
> For me, that's the easiest to read so far. With a lot of the other
> distractions cleaned up, I wonder if it's worth throwing another
> version up with subtle shadows on the boxes whic
Tom Lane wrote:
> The yellow "note" boxes still strike me as too eye-grabbing for
> their purpose. Otherwise this version seems nice.
How about a color which still differentiates these without being
quite so bold -- like Beige (#F5F5DC)?
For an example, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B
On 29 August 2010 17:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
>> Thom Brown wrote:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_ixion/4937010683/sizes/o/
>
>> For me, that's the easiest to read so far. With a lot of the other
>> distractions cleaned up, I wonder if it's worth throwing another
>>
Thom Brown wrote:
> The only change is the addition of very light shadowing (for Dave
> and Kevin)
Sorry for sounding picky, but can the shadowing be even lighter? It
seems a tad heavy next to the light gray in the boxes.
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.o
On 08/29/2010 03:56 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
> Okay, as per Robert's suggestion, I've changed all
> example/definition/synopsis boxes to grey, and followed Dave's
> suggestion of restoring borders and making the default text colour
> black for all boxed content. Bear in mind the rubbish screenshot ap
Thom Brown wrote:
> Okay, as per Robert's suggestion, I've changed all
> example/definition/synopsis boxes to grey, and followed Dave's
> suggestion of restoring borders and making the default text colour
> black for all boxed content. Bear in mind the rubbish screenshot
> app I'm using heavily
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
> blue boxes - definitions
> grey boxes - examples, output etc
> red boxes - warnings, cautions
> yellow boxes - notes
I think yellow notes and red warnings are good, but I wonder if
definitions should get the same markup as examples, output, etc
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>
> > Are the boxes really that distracting? How about if I remove the
> > border and just have a light background? The problem with relying on
> > font difference is that it's not the same on every platform, hence why
> > this all started.
> >
On 29 August 2010 08:39, Dave Page wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>
>> > Are the boxes really that distracting? How about if I remove the
>> > border and just have a light background? The problem with relying on
>> > font difference is that it's not the same on eve
On 28 August 2010 20:53, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 27 August 2010 20:23, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_ixion/4931878975/sizes/o/
>>
>> FWIW, I like the changes to the tables, but I do dislike both boxes *and*
>> background-coloring of
>> both and (=code examples). T
On 27 August 2010 20:23, Erik Rijkers wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_ixion/4931878975/sizes/o/
>
> FWIW, I like the changes to the tables, but I do dislike both boxes *and*
> background-coloring of
> both and (=code examples). To my eyes the changed font
> is enough for both
>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_ixion/4931878975/sizes/o/
FWIW, I like the changes to the tables, but I do dislike both boxes *and*
background-coloring of
both and (=code examples). To my eyes the changed font is
enough for both
and .
OTOH, I mainly use the .pdf version of the documen
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 18:04 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> Something I've noticed is an inconsistency in the SGML markup around
> functions listed in tables. Sometimes the entire function signature
> is considered to be the function, and other times it's just the
> function name, with its parameters
On 27 August 2010 17:10, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> The reason I removed the corners is that they can't be applied to
>> a warning or caution box using their current markup (as the
>> background pushes beyond the rounded corner), and when they appear
>> near a normal rounded-c
Thom Brown wrote:
> Okay, got rid of all the shadows, rounded corners etc and made
> some other changes:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_ixion/4932396780/sizes/o/
I generally liked the rounded corners. The tables near the front
are probably better off without them, but I would rather see
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 10:46 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
> > Okay, got rid of all the shadows, rounded corners etc and made
> > some other changes:
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_ixion/4932396780/sizes/o/
>
> I generally liked the rounded corners.
As did I.
> T
Thom Brown wrote:
> The reason I removed the corners is that they can't be applied to
> a warning or caution box using their current markup (as the
> background pushes beyond the rounded corner), and when they appear
> near a normal rounded-corner box, it might look a bit inconsistent
> (same bu
On 27 August 2010 16:46, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> Okay, got rid of all the shadows, rounded corners etc and made
>> some other changes:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_ixion/4932396780/sizes/o/
>
> I generally liked the rounded corners. The tables near the front
> are
On 26 August 2010 18:44, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 18:27 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> I agree with this too and I'll work on making sure things look more
>> consistent. I'll just have to think about how to make the differences
>> clear without random splashes of colour on th
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 18:27 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> I agree with this too and I'll work on making sure things look more
> consistent. I'll just have to think about how to make the differences
> clear without random splashes of colour on the page.
blues and greys are going to be easier on the
Thom Brown wrote:
> > Thom - there you go, now it's public, there's no backing down now :P
> >
>
> Looks like the webkit rendering engine can't deal with rounded corners
> neatly where the borders are different widths so got rid of the
> left-hand border-width.
>
> Did a little bit more today:
>
On 26 August 2010 18:23, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>>> It is great for it to be aesthetically pleasing but if we have
>>> those minor inconsistencies I think it would be distracting from
>>> the information itself.
>>
>> Agreed, and it's sort of experi
Thom Brown wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> It is great for it to be aesthetically pleasing but if we have
>> those minor inconsistencies I think it would be distracting from
>> the information itself.
>
> Agreed, and it's sort of experimental at the moment. If it
> doesn't help present inf
On 26 August 2010 18:00, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 17:28 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>
>>
>> Looks like the webkit rendering engine can't deal with rounded corners
>> neatly where the borders are different widths so got rid of the
>> left-hand border-width.
>
> did you use --webk
On 26 August 2010 18:03, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 08:03 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>
>> > Yeah, quite impressive. Would love to know how Thom did that. And if I
>> > can borrow it for the french translation of the manual :)
>>
>> Thanks, although I'm worried it's a bit too dist
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 08:03 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> > Yeah, quite impressive. Would love to know how Thom did that. And if I
> > can borrow it for the french translation of the manual :)
>
> Thanks, although I'm worried it's a bit too distracting. I got a bit
> carried away as originally it w
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 17:28 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>
> Looks like the webkit rendering engine can't deal with rounded corners
> neatly where the borders are different widths so got rid of the
> left-hand border-width.
did you use --webkit-border-radius
>
> Did a little bit more today:
> htt
On 26 August 2010 13:11, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 09:03, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 26 August 2010 06:52, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>>> Le 26/08/2010 01:29, Joshua D. Drake a écrit :
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 17:51 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 09:03, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 26 August 2010 06:52, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
>> Le 26/08/2010 01:29, Joshua D. Drake a écrit :
>>> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 17:51 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Thom Brown wrote:
> And another prototype:
> http://www.flickr.com
On 26 August 2010 06:52, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Le 26/08/2010 01:29, Joshua D. Drake a écrit :
>> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 17:51 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> Thom Brown wrote:
>>>
And another prototype:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_ixion/4927669444/sizes/o/
>>>
>>> Wow! That
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
