From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mo-p00-ob.rzone.de (mo-p00-ob.rzone.de [81.169.146.160]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p0DCrJSo005568 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:53:19 -0500 (EST) X-RZG-AUTH: :JiIXek6mfvEEUpFQdo7Fj1/zg48CFjWjQv0cW+St/nW/YPAwtil3lPd02XoK X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from britannica.bec.de (dslb-088-074-033-020.pools.arcor-ip.net [88.74.33.20]) by post.strato.de (jimi mo8) (RZmta 24.9) with (DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTP id f05f12n0DBWRyx for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:53:16 +0100 (MET) Received: by britannica.bec.de (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:53:15 +0100 Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:53:15 +0100 From: Joerg Sonnenberger To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: HTML output for tbl Message-ID: <20110113125315.GA27606@britannica.bec.de> Mail-Followup-To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv References: <20110112215801.GA5059@britannica.bec.de> <4D2EF1DB.2020306@bsd.lv> X-Mailinglist: mdocml-tech Reply-To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D2EF1DB.2020306@bsd.lv> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 01:36:43PM +0100, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote: > >looking at the output for queue(3), there is a rather obvious bug in the > >width output. It repeats the width: xxx for every column, e.g. the third > >column has three width in order. This magically works due to the > >overwrite rules, but is far from pretty. I also wonder if we should use > >min-width and screw IE 6. That and using a single table (not one per > >row) would be enough to give queue(3) a properly formatted table without > >having to go extra wide by switching spacing from ex to em. > > Joerg, > > This isn't really a bug: it's because tables can be interspersed > with arbitrary macros, so each row should in theory be standalone. > > However, I agree that this makes for ugly output, and having just > tested it with SCALE_EM, I think it's best to keep a few bits of > state and just reinitialise the table if broken up by other macros. > I'll write this up when I've a few minutes to myself. ACK. I do prefer to have SCALE_EX as default, the width can go way too large otherwise. > And no, we can't screw IE6. Well, the other option would be to require a bit JS for IE6. The point is that it is the only larger browser that might still be used that doesn't do min-width and also understands CSS. Worst case is that it doesn't use the size hints -- I consider that acceptable as fallout for getting much better output with useful browsers. > It just now occurs to me that, since CSS "cascades" atop the HTML, I > can set pixel-widths as a safe default and let CSS, with its > precise "em" widths, override these values. This will make browsers > without CSS also recognise mandoc -Thtml's tables, whether from > tbl(7) or otherwise, which for now require the style-sheet for > stipulating widths. I disagree somewhat. Using col is a good idea as it avoids redundant markup. Trying to second guess the font width is prone to fail. That's why specifying a minimal width is better -- it will still just stretch if needed. Joerg -- To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv