Re: HTML output for tbl

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@britannica.bec.de>]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 03:30:42PM +0100, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote:
> >>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.
> 
> Joerg,
> 
> I just checked in a change to -Thtml for tables that has the
> following basic logic: when a new table is encountered, it sets
> column widths using <COL> and the "width" CSS style.

This looks good.

> These columns are used until a macro is encountered.  At this point,
> the table is closed out and the macro is processed.
> 
> (This also works with block macros.)
> 
> Then when the first table-row is again encountered, the table is
> re-opened in the same way.
> 
> This allows for arbitrary breaks in the table flow; subsequent table
> rows, by being in the same TABLE, are all sized intelligently by the
> browser.

This sounds fine, too.

> >>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<COL>  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.
> 
> Consider this.  If I hardcode <COL WIDTH="20" STYLE="min-width:
> 4ex;">, where "20" is (I'm just making these numbers up) a
> reasonable guess at the pixel-width of 4 x's, then "real" browsers
> can use the min-width and IE6, and any other non-CSS, will use the
> COL sizes for a reasonable spacing.
> 
> Thoughts?

The question arrives if you have input that is too large to fit, but can
be broken apart like multiple words. For queue(3) the changed version
works because the "_FOREACH_REVERSE" is a single word. If you replace
the second _ with a space, it will be line wrapped. With min-width,
modern browser will try to increase the total width of the table to
avoid line breaks. Specifying both width and min-width is useless as
width overrides any min-width attribute.

Joerg
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv