Mailing-List: contact docs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: docs@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:50:52 +0200
From: Mads Toftum <mads@toftum.dk>
To: docs@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Syntax Highlighting
Message-ID: <20120425125052.GN7563@toftum.dk>
References: <201204242006.24835@news.perlig.de>
 <5a358e5c-97c8-435c-ba4e-6f92410b8432@iris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5a358e5c-97c8-435c-ba4e-6f92410b8432@iris>

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:13:46AM -0000, Igor Gali?? wrote:
> 
> We had some discussion on IRC, and Daniel fixed up a test with
> syntax highlighting for Configuration sections. Rich suggested
> we keep it with the bluish grey that we've trained people to
> look for. The outcome is this:
> 
>   http://www.humbedooh.com/apache/perf-scaling.html.en#Caching%20Content
> 
> 
Not a fan at all. I'm not too keen on having javascript be part of
rendering the docs and there's a very fine line between config
highlighting and looking like a neon sign. It's not too bad in a larger
section, but I find it less readable on short snippets of only a few
lines. To see what I'm talking about, look at the 3 line snippet at the
end of the section - there I think the color takes up too much
attention.
So my preference would be clearly in favor of only coloring code and if
we must, some of the larger Configuration examples.

vh

Mads Toftum
-- 
http://soulfood.dk

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org