trafficserver-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Miles Libbey <mi...@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject Re: Documentation: TODO
Date Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:49:16 GMT
On May 19, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Igor Galić wrote:
> Hey folks,
> 
> Following my last email, here's a list of things that need attention,
> before we can consider exposing our documentation to a larger
> user-base. These are things you can do even if you couldn't put
> together a coherent sentence at gunpoint.
> ...
> CSS
> ===
> 
> Our customers should be able to clearly distinguish the single parts
> of a document. So far this works pretty well with code blocks, and
> that's about it :) It's very hard to tell at which depth level
> (h1-h4) you are
> 
> Instead of tables as in the old docs, I have (ab)used definition
> lists. The CSS could need some love...
> 
> As mentioned above, I'd like to fit a navigation on every HTML page,
> while still being able to read it on my tiny laptop - If you think
> that's a bad idea, say something!

is the only way to try out tweaks to commit changes to 
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/trafficserver/site/branches/ats-cms/content/styles/ ? (that
is, in the HTML style, I could load the document in a browser, make tweaks to the CSS, and
refresh the page to see how it looks. How does the new process work?

Do the site pages (home and download) have to have the same CSS as the documentation?

> Fonts
> =====
> 
> I'm not very sure if the choice of fonts is the right one. I changed
> body { font-family: sans-serif; } and it looks better. If you
> disagree, say something

heh.  The current home page font starts with the default sans-serif font, arial.  falling
back to another sans-serif font (Helvetica) and then finally falls back to the sans-serif
family. In the documentation side, the font is set to the default sans-serif font, arial --
there should not be a major difference in that change :)

> 
> Search (HTML/JavaScript)
> ========================
> 
> Our old documentation has a Google search - our new documentation
> should have that too! (Or, if you're bored and want to do
> solr/lucene...) Our

What is the primary issue -- ie, is there a reason we can't just copy over the form and search
page?

miles
Mime
View raw message