Re: Stylesheet Ordering Requirement

On 05/20/2016 06:57 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> One other thought on this topic:
>
> I wonder if this issue is a side effect of adding more rules in the base style sheet. Having more rules has the nice effect
> that we can factorize and reuse a lot more. It provides an off-the-shelf set of rules. etc. I haven't heard anyone complaining
> about the increase of rules in the base style sheet.
>
> But, it also means that the pubrules requirement is increasing, ie we're making it hard to change rules around table layout,
> pre, code, nav, ol.algorithm, example, etc. Those things were never intended to be the target of the pubrules checker.
>
> In other words, from the perspective of pubrules, there is a set of rules that we care in the base style sheet while there is
> a set that we don't mind if the authors start modifying them. Since we've been increasing the second set, the rule is getting
> more in the way.
>
> Is that correct?

The stylesheet documentation more or less says "please feel free
to modify table styling, particularly wrt alignment". Most other
things shouldn't be modified, except maybe the layout of figures
(which are often floated or set into tables or suchlike).

However a number of things need subclassing, and having this
ordering requirement makes that much more awkward than it needs
to be.

~fantasai

Received on Saturday, 21 May 2016 03:24:50 UTC