Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?

"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> On 4/29/20 7:40 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> I'll compromise on the temporary importants, but first I want to see
>> what's causing the need for it. Do you have a suggestion on a page to test?

I haven't yet pushed anything dependent on the new markup, but
attached is a draft revision for the JSON section; if you look at
the SRFs such as json_array_elements you'll see the issue.

> From real quick I got it to here. With the latest copy of the doc builds
> it appears to still work as expected, but I need a section with the new
> "pre" block to test.

Yeah, I see you found the same <p> and <pre> settings I did.

> I think the "background-color: inherit !important" is a bit odd, and
> would like to trace that one down a bit more, but I did not see anything
> obvious on my glance through it.

I think it's coming from this bit at about main.css:660:

pre,
code,
#docContent kbd,
#docContent tt.LITERAL,
#docContent tt.REPLACEABLE {
font-size: 0.9rem !important;
color: inherit !important;
background-color: #f8f9fa !important;
border-radius: .25rem;
margin: .6rem 0;
font-weight: 300;
}

I had to override most of that.

regards, tom lane