From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Website stylesheet for local docs |
Date: | 2012-03-13 17:26:04 |
Message-ID: | 20120313172604.GD9030@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 05:26:04PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 16:20, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 04:37, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> Why not change the default? Does anyone really prefer the bare bones
> >>> doc output?
> >
> >> Yes, Peter made a point about preferring that back when we changed the
> >> developer docs to be on the main website (how it got worse but at
> >> least he could work on his local build).
> >
> > FWIW, I don't especially like the website style either --- it's too busy
> > calling attention to itself with colored backgrounds etc.
>
> There we go, at least two people, and people who do a lot of builds
> and checks of the docs, like the current format. So I think that's a
> good argument to keep the current format the default, and just add a
> target like my suggestion as an *option* :-)
One other problem with the website style is that there is a zero left
margin, making it harder to read. That might work fine when displayed
inside our existing website div blocks, but not stand-alone.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-13 17:32:20 | Re: pl/python long-lived allocations in datum->dict transformation |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-13 17:09:57 | Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt |