Sizing of <pre> and {@code with current jdk8 css

[Jonathan Gibbons]

I'll take that as a bug report...

-- Jon

On 07/24/2013 05:50 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> You're not the only one annoyed by the giant sample code font.  I 
> agree with you that the "regular" text should be regular text size, 
> and the sample text not too much different - that's why we have 
> different fonts!  CSS owners, please fix!
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Mike Duigou <mike.duigou at oracle.com 
> <mailto:mike.duigou at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     I have been working on javadoc for the JDK 8 lambda streams
>     feature and ran across some interesting quirks in the current
>     default javadoc css.
>
>     We have been using the construction
>
>     <pre>{@code
>        ...
>     }</pre>
>
>     for block examples. We add the {@code} to the normal <pre> block
>     to avoid having to use html entities within the sample to escape
>     the "&" and "<" characters. This makes the examples easier to read
>     in the original source file.
>
>     The formatting of a <pre> block and a <pre>{@code block is
>     slightly different as a result relative sizing and nesting.
>
>     The <pre> tag sets the font-size to 1.3em (stylesheet.css, line 31)
>
>     The <code> tag (emitted by {@code}) sets the font-size to 1.2em
>     (stylesheet.css, line 55)
>
>     When nested the effective size is default * body (76%) * 1.3 (pre)
>     * 1.2 (code).
>
>     It would be nice if {@code} nested inside <pre> didn't increase
>     the size. Using relative sizes is generally going to be weird
>     whenever nesting occurs especially if it can occur in more than
>     one order.
>
>     Could <pre> and <code> be made to use the same size?
>
>     Might it be better to use "<pre>{@literal ... " than "<pre>{@code
>     ..." as {@literal doesn't add any styles?
>
>     Out of curiosity:
>
>     - Why is the default body size 76% of the default text size? The
>     100% size is supposed the user's comfortable reading size. Other
>     than for "fine print" why would we want to force a size smaller
>     than that?
>     - An explicit font selection is made for body copy but none is
>     made for code/pre text. Why not? Choosing a code font would allow
>     better matching of the size of the body copy and mono space text.
>     It would appear that for Arial/Courier that a 1.05em ratio is
>     somewhat better than the 1.2em currently used.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Mike
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/javadoc-dev/attachments/20130724/b8b50393/attachment.html