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

On 4/29/20 8:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
>> On 4/29/20 7:40 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>>> 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?
> 
> I haven't yet pushed anything dependent on the new markup, but
> attached is a draft revision for the JSON section; if you look at
> the SRFs such as json_array_elements you'll see the issue.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Yeah, I see you found the same <p> and <pre> settings I did.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I think it's coming from this bit at about main.css:660:
> 
> pre,
> code,
> #docContent kbd,
> #docContent tt.LITERAL,
> #docContent tt.REPLACEABLE {
>   font-size: 0.9rem !important;
>   color: inherit !important;
>   background-color: #f8f9fa !important;
>   border-radius: .25rem;
>   margin: .6rem 0;
>   font-weight: 300;
> }
> 
> I had to override most of that.

Yeah, I had started toying with that and saw no differences, but I would
need to test against anything in particular. I'm pretty confident we can
remove those importants, based on my desultory testing.

I'll try and get the patch built + docs loaded, and see if we can safely
remove those.

Jonathan