From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81B97233938; Fri, 24 Jul 2026 23:02:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784934157; cv=none; b=uu1QMNDEIQYK/bk5ef6p8Bx6b6+0Y2bxUq2KcT1BuAsUxQYOKnKrmj3/LiNdINUa8tjv910qp5s9mqePzyy/FfouA5RpGyC2oaEeU9DXLcfQlwJA4nZVjuYFoNjtnbyCIH4JC7sGEU36iSJNvTnIABWu7Z5LM7F7LBPpO2ySoKM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784934157; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FTnOMWflHGb2DcaV8KdTZwAfIe5InScntDUUNu5GPV0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=NEpbOOnPD50bnoN6xzWS6cqE/Kw8Ib+cLRZqXt5dWd0wNJbbIVit7qa+YNRfbrggbBFtgjmkEXc0cnJ9U6Bi6B0FeAVyFykdSgPIv5lXLg2//AgIutjvsrUdCGuT4l4BoSLO7FIxXwcq+ZvHbS22GeOV6CStwqZf+fvNWn1M3b0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=Y4djdPHR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="Y4djdPHR" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 48487408C5 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1784934152; bh=XW+NBSSH4Kb5xT0ou0HpLbHQZuLFIPAxINFVFaksopU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Y4djdPHRjBFQPttUggrVX3RZdaqWvnzaiOpYRR/QJl+l1SFnzcekQ9wdhYR3uv1BK PYncp1iphVUu6JXjB8b3mnkUEJ+hv5zIEXLL/J5zLudHC/k8DtTCCSDWlrWJDdNyAQ /K3uOKLgUhwlsOC8nqlyjw50K60RUfDUWEpP/3r1kSDrLcas13rx7ZW0RIzFi61rOs +1PKbGRVtjIISAwLIpO1MHdQzb/xmXKaglNNSG7CacRZ3BkZlgEDsl0PPQz1nxf+GI EPzxN1LJ/VEzJ/9q5nvASMQeszLAZaoTZg6A//hvnFB0IGhHOAQlBA432tSR+8BbT+ IFkSglR/e6WXA== Received: from localhost (c-71-229-227-126.hsd1.co.comcast.net [71.229.227.126]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48487408C5; Fri, 24 Jul 2026 23:02:32 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Rito Rhymes , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Hans Verkuil Cc: Daniel Lundberg Pedersen , Randy Dunlap , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] docs: make tables responsive with content-aware column widths In-Reply-To: <20260724214249.23830-1-rito@ritovision.com> References: <20260724214249.23830-1-rito@ritovision.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:02:31 -0600 Message-ID: <87ik646lfc.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-media@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Rito Rhymes writes: > This series establishes a responsive layout foundation for generated > tables throughout the documentation site. Wide tables can use contained > horizontal scrolling on narrow viewports instead of widening the page or > compressing their columns until the content becomes unreadable. > > It also derives content-aware minimum widths for each column, giving > table content a reasonable floor before wrapping. This prevents > aggressive wrapping from collapsing a column's own text into nearly > vertical lines and prevents wider columns from squeezing neighboring > columns into the same unreadable state. > > This addresses the current pathological failure modes in which tables > either widen the page beyond its margins or collapse columns into > nearly vertical text. So I will look at this in more detail in the coming days. My immediate reaction, though, is that this is the injection of a bunch of complexity to solve a problem that nobody has complained about. Your last attempt here led to regressions that took a while to turn up; I don't really see enough of a reason to risk that again. Thanks, jon