Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr.shulgin@zalando.de>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-05-05T15:17:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- hack-table-9.1.patch (text/x-diff) patch
Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr.shulgin@zalando.de> writes: > Would it be premature to complain about the not-that-great look of Table > 9.1 now? > Compare the two attached images: the screenshot from > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/functions-comparison.html > vs the GIMP-assisted pipe dream of mine to align it to the right edge of > the table cell. Hmph. I experimented with the attached patch, but at least in my browser it only reduces the spacing inconsistency, it doesn't eliminate it. And from a semantic standpoint, this is not nice markup. Doing better would require substantial foolery with sub-columns and I'm not even sure that it's possible to fix that way. (We don't have huge control over inter-column spacing, I don't think.) On the whole, if this is our worst table problem, I'm happy ;-) regards, tom lane
Commits
-
Doc: re-re-revise markup for tables of functions.
- 4ad047a6eac3 13.0 landed
-
Doc: revise formatting of function/operator tables.
- 737d69ffc3cf 13.0 landed