On 04/21/2016 09:32 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 08:04 -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
> Add bolding for <dt> elements to make them "stick out" on the page
rather
> that just a stream of text where the <dt> elements only differ by slightly
> different font style since most uses encase the text within using <code>
>
> Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan(a)redhat.com>
> ---
>
> I had suggested this during a review of Andrea's changes late last month:
>
>
http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2016-March/msg01501.html
>
> but figure I'll make the more 'formal' patch request...
Yeah, sorry about that. I just forgot :(
I figured... no big deal.
> docs/generic.css | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/docs/generic.css b/docs/generic.css
> index 208e31e..b86bb88 100644
> --- a/docs/generic.css
> +++ b/docs/generic.css
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ ul, ol {
> dt {
> margin-left: 1em;
> margin-right: 2em;
> + font-weight: bold;
> }
>
> dl dd {
This styling is appropriate when the content of <dt> is a
<code> element, because that makes the font smaller.
This is the case for most of the <dt>s in our documentation,
but not *all* of them. I've just posted a patch[1] that fixes
a bunch of <dt>s that were missing the inner <code> element,
but that still leaves out a few that are just not supposed to
have it - look no further than contact.html for an example.
So my proposal is, apply my patch first, and then add
dt code {
font-weight: bold;
}
to the stylesheet instead.
Sounds good?
I saw your series - been a VERY BUSY day on libvir-list... In any case
wouldn't that make *all* <code> elements bolded - there's a lot more of
those and then the <dt> bolding wouldn't stand out
John