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

[Jonathan Gibbons]

Issue 8021313, should be available on bugs.sun.com soon.

-- Jon


On 07/24/2013 06:23 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> 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/ba36758f/attachment.html