Re: [PATCH] docs: custom.css: don't limit randering to old 800px monitors

[Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>]

Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> writes:

> On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:27:23 -0600
> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
>
>> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> writes:
>> 
>> > Right now, base.css style imposes a maximum limit of 800 horizontal
>> > pixels to be compatible with very old SVGA monitors.
>> >
>> > Remove such artificial limit, letting the output to be adjusted to
>> > the browser windows size.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
>> > ---
>> >  Documentation/sphinx-static/custom.css | 2 ++
>> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/Documentation/sphinx-static/custom.css b/Documentation/sphinx-static/custom.css
>> > index 5aa0a1ed9864..1055db7dc1dd 100644
>> > --- a/Documentation/sphinx-static/custom.css
>> > +++ b/Documentation/sphinx-static/custom.css
>> > @@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
>> >   * CSS tweaks for the Alabaster theme
>> >   */
>> >  
>> > +div.body {  max-width: none; }
>> > +  
>> 
>> 800px is clearly a dumb limit, I have no problem changing that.  Going
>> to arbitrary width doesn't seem good for readability, though.  What do
>> you think about, instead, setting a limit in a resolution-independent
>> say, to (say) 60em?
>
> 60em also seems too small, considering the size of tables we have on
> media. Some tables have one column for each bit, plus one or two other
> columns, so the table would easily have up to 34 columns. After adding
> long fourcc codes there and V4L macro names, it can easily be very big,
> in terms of "em" measures.

I did say "say" :)  I don't feel the need to argue too much about the
exact value.  I do believe, though, that excessively wide columns are
not good human factors in general.

> If you don't want to let it become too big(*), then perhaps it could
> be something like:
>
> 	div.body {  max-width: 80%; }

I like that even less...I tend to use relatively narrow browser windows
so that I can fit more of them on the screen...it shouldn't waste that
space unnecessarily.

> (*) personally, I don't see any issues on it. My monitor's ratio is
>     32/9. Quite the opposite, with such ultra-wide screen, I don't like
>     sites that have fixed max-width limits, as they end limiting my
>     personal taste for no good reason.

Well, I won't fight about it (too much :).  I definitely agree that the
800px value makes little sense.

jon