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

On 4/29/20 10:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> Please see latest attached. I've eliminated the !important, condensed
>> the CSS, and the desultory (yes, my word of the week) testing did not
>> find issues in devel or earlier versions.
>
>> Please let me know if this works for you. If it does, I'll push it up to
>> pgweb.
>
> NAK ... that does *not* work for me.

Learned a new acronym...

> It looks to me like you are expecting that "margin" with four parameters
> will override an outer-level setting of margin-bottom, but that is not
> how my browser is responding. ISTM you need to explicitly set the very
> same parameters in the more-specific rule as in the less-specific rule
> that you want to override.
>
> I get reasonable results with these settings, but not with
> anything more abbreviated:

> In particular, it might look like the multiple padding settings
> in the pre.programlisting rule are redundant ... but they are not, at
> least not with Safari.

Clearly I was caught doing a single browser test (Chrome).

Reverted back to the verbose way sans !important, attached, which
appears to be the consensus. If you can ACK this, I'll commit.

Thanks,

Jonathan