On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:20:13AM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote: > I've updated the CSS. Can you take a look again? > > I changed the font-size to normal, except for the code chunks. Also, I Well, it looks better to me, in that the body text isn't small and scrunched. The code chunks are, of course, noticeably smaller. I really don't see what you're trying to accomplish with that. Are you trying to make it fit into browsers where we are somehow wrapping in the code chunks? > changed the font of the in-paragrah code tags to sans-serif, that's > the most sane way I can think to fix the problem with different > font-size configured for monospace font. Hrm. I'm not sure that is particularly sane. You have the style for a <tt> tag rendering as a sans-serif font. But the _definition_ of tt is to render as a monospace font. As it happens, there are no <tt> tags at all in the document, so that change is irrelevant (and I wonder if we should ditch the tt.literal specifier entirely). But I tend to think that <code> tags generally follow the same principle. Looking over the document, I didn't find anything that looked broken by it (at least in Firefox using my set of fonts). But it just seems counterintuitive. If you are unsatisfied with the size of the text in <code> blocks, can't you set some variant of an em (e.g., 1.1em)? Looking at all of these <code> examples did make me notice one thing: there are some special characters used that are probably counterintuitive. For instance, "--not" is rendered with a single long dash instead of two short dashes. A code snippet has a right-arrow character instead of "->". I assume this is asciidoc trying to be clever, but I haven't looked into it. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
