On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 04:32:36PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote: > Bump the width to 85em while keeping a maximum width of 90%. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > docs/libvirt.css | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/docs/libvirt.css b/docs/libvirt.css > index c5fe27fa3f..dcae2a338a 100644 > --- a/docs/libvirt.css > +++ b/docs/libvirt.css > @@ -100,14 +100,15 @@ > margin-right: auto; > padding: 0px; > padding-bottom: 1em; > - max-width: 60em; > + max-width: 90%; > + width: 85em; > } FYI, the reason I originally chose 60em is because that is commonly considered to be the optimal length for readability https://baymard.com/blog/line-length-readability This is more important for large blocks of text, eg magazine articles blog posts, etc. Our APIs docs have alot more structured information, even though it does have some blocks of text as description it is not so critical to adhere to the normal guidelines. We also potentially have trouble where very long C identifiers might force unnatural line breaks in our API docs. Personally I do still find it easier to read the APIs docs with the narrower 60em width than 85em. Was there a particular reason you picked 85ems or was it arbitrary, and where there specific parts of the docs that had trouble with 60 ems ? I'm wondering if some figure inbetween might cope with the bad bits you saw, without making things quite so wide. eg would 70em be sufficient ? > > body.index #content, > body.docs #content, > body.hvsupport #content > { > - max-width: inherit; > + width: inherit; > } > > pre { Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
