Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?

On 5/4/20 6:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> On 5/4/20 5:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

>> It does look better, but things look a bit smushed together on the pgweb
>> front.
>
> Yeah. There's less smushing of function signatures when building the
> docs without STYLE=website, so there's something specific to the
> website style. I think you'd mentioned that we were intentionally
> crimping the space and/or font size within tables? Maybe that could
> get un-done now. I hadn't bothered to worry about such details until
> we had a reasonable sample of cases to look at, but now would be a
> good time.

IIRC this was the monospace issue[1], but there are some other things
I'm seeing (e.g. the italics) that may be pushing things closer together
htan not. Now that round 1 of commits are in, I can take a whack at
tightening it up this week.

> Another rendering oddity that I'd not bothered to chase down is
> the appearance of <itemizedlist> environments within table cells.
> We have a few of those now as a result of migration of material
> that had been out-of-line into the table cells; one example is
> in json_populate_record, about halfway down this page:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/functions-json.html
>
> The text of the list items seems to be getting indented to the
> same extent as a not-in-a-table <itemizedlist> list does ---
> but the bullets aren't indented nearly as much, making for
> weird spacing. (There's a short <itemizedlist> at the top of
> the same page that you can compare to.)

Looking at the code, I believe this is a pretty straightforward
adjustment. I can include it with the aforementioned changes.

Jonathan

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3f8560a6-9044-bdb8-6b3b-68842570db18@postgresql.org