Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 18:08:21 +0100 From: Fabian Keil <freebsd-listen@fabiankeil.de> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Home page font size problem Message-ID: <20101229180821.3cd2f5bd@r500.local> In-Reply-To: <4D192F19.304@FreeBSD.org> References: <4D1503E6.7050604@FreeBSD.org> <20101225114233.750421f0@r500.local> <4D192F19.304@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/uZAGFH.Vt33/Ed57ZRAHw9t Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On 12/25/2010 02:42, Fabian Keil wrote: > > Doug Barton<dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > >> I usually have firefox set to a minimum font size of 12. With that > >> setting I get this for the grey navbar at the top of the home page: > >> http://dougbarton.us/home-page.png (I tried the obvious solution of > >> reducing my font size, but the only reason that's readable at all atm > >> is because I'm using a large screen.) > > > > That's one of many known problems with the "new" layout: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3Dwww/91539 > > > >> Is there a way to fix that so that it doesn't wrap? I looked at the > >> source of the page but got lost in the CSS maze. > > > > I'm using the following Privoxy filter as a workaround: >=20 > Any chance you could produce that as a diff to the existing source? At=20 > the 5 year mark I think we've pole-vaulted past "maintainer timeout" Without consensus that the changes are an improvement, I don't think coming up with a diff to the existing source is time well spend. I don't get the impression that the persons with access to the CSS files in question consider the rendering issues an actual problem. After all, most of the issues were known before the layout got changed. And those that agree that the rendering issues are a problem, don't necessarily agree with the changes in the workaround. For example it allows the page to scale with the browser width, which I consider a feature, while others consider it a bug. At the moment I would expect the diff to be either ignored from the beginning, or to be reverted without discussion later on: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-www/2005-December/003428.html Fabian --Sig_/uZAGFH.Vt33/Ed57ZRAHw9t Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk0bawgACgkQBYqIVf93VJ3M7wCgoUvxCJvWmJCnIT3StYbQA6GN 1ccAn0L4TM6yUuCXhOY8NZcVHnLFkKhL =64CA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/uZAGFH.Vt33/Ed57ZRAHw9t--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101229180821.3cd2f5bd>