[libvirt] [PATCH 2/2 v2] docs: Add some style and color to the HTML documentation

[Jiri Denemark]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 15:49:22 +0100, Claudio Bley wrote:
> At Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:58:28 +0100,
> Jiri Denemark wrote:
> > > +
> > > +tt, pre {
> > > +  font-family: "Ubuntu Monospace", "Consolas", "Lucida Console", monospace;
> > > +}
> > 
> > Do not do this. Default font-family for tt/pre is just good enough. If
> > you don't like it, change your desktop/browser settings.
> 
> I beg to differ. I tried 4 Browsers on 2 OSes, and it looked bad to me
> in all of them using the default user agent settings.
> 
> IMO, the 80% font-size is too small to look any decent using the user
> agent font settings for tt / pre elements. It's hardly readable! (bad
> with Firefox on Fedora, worse with Webkit on Windows)

The problem is that it's all totally subjective. For me the default is
just fine and it looks ugly with your style (and luckily I don't have
Ubuntu Monospace so that it is not as bad as it could be). The important
thing is that the default can be easily overridden while your proposed
change can be hardly overridden. One would either need to provide it's
own CSS style and force the browser to use it (which usually makes
things worse) or tell fontconfig to replace Ubuntu Monospace with
something different.

> But removing the 80% font-size setting looks ugly, too.
> 
> Any way, if there was only a single browser with bad defaults,
> wouldn't it make sense trying to fix this for better user experience
> instead of telling all users to change their settings (on every single
> system they use)?

We haven't received any single complaint about this so I doubt all users
need to change anything.

> 
> As this is mainly a matter of taste, other opinions, please! Or better
> yet, alternative solutions...
> 
> > > +.api {
> > > +    font-family: "Ubuntu Monospace", "Consolas", "Lucida Console", monospace;
> > > +    line-height: 175%;
> > > +}
> 
> > Just
> > 
> >     font-family: monospace;
> > 
> > without other families and without the huge line-height which makes
> > reading hard.
> 
> OK, I'll reduce the line-height. It had to be that large for the
> underline decoration of links. But see below.

I don't think it needs to be changed at all when underline decoration is
removed.

> Here's a follow-up patch:

It's definitely better than before but I still think we should leave
more things at their defaults.

Jirka