Re: site stylesheet: <code> and pre.code viewed in MSIE 6, bulleting ol.toc, and subclassing <code>

fantasai <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Doctor Unclear wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Dear Fantasai,
> > 
> > I just examined the
> > http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/upgrade_2.html
> > page today with MSIE 6 and I believe that content in <code> and pre.code 
> > is quite small.
> > When viewed in Opera 7.54 and Mozilla 1.8a4, the font size of content of 
> > <code> and pre.code is significantly bigger, relatively bigger and much 
> > more readable.
> > 
> > pre.code and code do not have any defined font-size in the stylesheets
> > base/content.css
> > and
> > cavendish/content.css
> > 
> > I am convinced that the current size of font for <code> and pre.code is 
> > predefined (default browser values) in MSIE 6, explaining why it is 
> > rather small.
> 
> Yes, it looks quite ridiculous. I'll look into it. :)
> 

In my original email, I mentioned 

"
My proposal on this:
In base/content.css:
   pre.code {
       overflow: auto;
       margin: 1em .5em;
       padding: .2em;
       border: solid 1px;
       font-size: 1em; /* overriding MSIE 6 default value */
   }

and

   code {
       white-space: nowrap;
       font-size: inherit; /* will inherit from parent block,
overriding MSIE 6 default value */
   } 
"

> > Note that right now, I'm not perfectly happy with the use of <ol 
> > class="toc"> as nested list-items are awkward, not logically+visually 
> > cascading. The document does not have numbered sections to begin with. 
> > So, I might revert to what was designed before.
> 
> If the table of contents is representing the order of sections in the
> document, then it /ought/ to be given as <ol> (ordered list) not <ul>
> (unordered list). 

If the document does not number sections, then why should the toc have
numbered sections? Ordered does not necessarly mean numbered.

I could change all ol.toc to be bulleted, but I'm
> not sure how well that would work with other pages. (You aren't the
> only one who's asked for this, though.)
> 

Well,
<ul class="toc"> could be defined for starters: it is mentioned in 
http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/writing/markup#navigation
but not defined in
http://www.mozilla.org/css/base/content.css

> > One last issue. The document
> > Mozilla Web Author FAQ
> > http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html
> > makes use of class="htmlmarkup" and class="script"
> > (e.g.
> > <code class="script">document.all</code> and <code 
> > class="script">document.layers</code>
> > <code class="htmlmarkup">&lt;layer&gt;</code> and <code 
> > class="htmlmarkup">&lt;div&gt;</code>
> > )
> > but these classes are not (no longer?) supported for now. I think these 
> > would make a good addition in linked stylesheets.
> 
> What styling would you want for them? (How would it look
> different from regular <code>?)
> 

Good question! I have no idea :) All I know is that referring to html
markup and javascript code is quite common in mozilla.org webpages and
I know classes (were defined?) are referenced in
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html

Take care,

DU