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

On 4/29/20 7:40 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 4/29/20 7:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> After further fooling with this issue, I've determined that
>>
>> (1) I need to be able to use <programlisting> environments within the
>> func_table_entry cells and have them render more-or-less normally.
>> There doesn't seem to be any other good way to render multiline
>> example results for set-returning functions ... but marking such
>> environments up to the extent that the website style normally does
>> is very distracting.
>>
>> (2) I found that adding !important to the func_table_entry rules
>> is enough to override less-general !important rules.  So it'd be
>> possible to leave all the existing CSS rules alone, if that makes
>> you feel more comfortable.
>>
>> The attached updated patch reflects both of these conclusions.
>> We could take out some of the !important annotations here if
>> you're willing to delete !important annotations in more-global
>> rules for <p> and/or <pre>, but maybe that's something to fool
>> with later.  I'd like to get this done sooner ...
> 
> My preference would be to figure out the CSS rules that are causing you
> to rely on !important at the table level and just fix that up, rather
> than hacking in too many !important.
> 
> I'll compromise on the temporary importants, but first I want to see
> what's causing the need for it. Do you have a suggestion on a page to test?

From real quick I got it to here. With the latest copy of the doc builds
it appears to still work as expected, but I need a section with the new
"pre" block to test.

I think the "background-color: inherit !important" is a bit odd, and
would like to trace that one down a bit more, but I did not see anything
obvious on my glance through it.

How does it look on your end?

Jonathan