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 73E7A3FCB10; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 21:21:20 +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=1785273682; cv=none; b=tbkbKTu2Er5QBowJRqQKjd4o0ogMRUX5xYJOIqIxlgk6xBOqYbM+zdPaLNMvCaqKLuBrwuV+Nkw6m/1TwxclbiqK5yfSUh5rweIRkThOtGGqqi20E5+zPjwC4VIBjF5lFW056ufq+v5OIEWuSsPHSF3YTOVPSwzeGzIT7BD4RPk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785273682; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Srrl7wk8ZS7C7yj5dgZkLHAtIulRQn1GxUyv1FqS938=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=UM1M7YWIuY3v/W2KDTpJnHT9RxutKglkV10E9KV5vHxXqHkPGFDU3PbKqP26yKl2v8uY1TezuYHeccCFCTkU04EBAXPalZwrbhpMdGTeBEUeFh1mrVs7ZIrgiZYYH1W+HGEVQUmx+zen1yhNsy9A3btVKGvKfl1dZKfCKNqas74= 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=NN02Vwij; 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="NN02Vwij" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 6916240430 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1785273679; bh=N+tREFikhTzGP5Sp5+shjkryH62wM0kw8ouIHCWG3Xs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=NN02VwijLLCY4EH1MPABKgZg2ecJKfh9FpPSb9G7NGbFlbZ0gMfAbOXt9a2YPDOhW gwE8072rJF+WNQgqNvymGNbDf1jGU78zA1sGrSmRY9e8gYuHKhwPq6uYfgH2K3kTwl hp/aOIsPtrZ0yE+bLJ8pHqnQQ57Av5p7dPY0xL3AGWlILevJvM3lZM7Vv7994dnHKs h5v2dwCX1jud78b5BFx70umM0ZDuKe3mZR+xf+Bz3GriRZd0xttmw5k9ISSvSVpFqP n/RwAcfcPJ5qceCMYnAXHSN5Brb8zb+YCDf1LOYnw6v30zZeyu2innoPYYEBn8yyNK co8rchO5OJRhg== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:27b::1fe]) (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 6916240430; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 21:21:19 +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: References: <20260724214249.23830-1-rito@ritovision.com> <87ik646lfc.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 15:21:18 -0600 Message-ID: <87wluedd4h.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: >> So I will look at this in more detail in the coming days. > > Thank you, I look forward to the review. > >> this is the injection of a bunch of complexity to solve a problem that >> nobody has complained about. > > I don't believe that aligns with the reality, Jon. So I have spent a while looking at this change and playing with it. It hasn't really changed my feeling about the whole thing. You speak repeatedly about rendering on browser windows of widths less than 500px. Who uses such a window? The last Nexus 1 holdout I knew gave up years ago. I would want some sort of indication that this is an actual use case - one with unusually silent users it seems - before trying to address it. I really don't like the 40-classes hack. CSS makes us do some painful things sometimes, but still ... again, I would have to see that there is a real use case before even considering it. Just setting max-width doesn't do what you want? I will listen to what others have to say and, if there is a clamor for the inclusion of this work, I'll consider it further. But, as it stands, my impression still is that it adds a lot of machine-generated complexity that humans will have to maintain going forward for a problem that nobody has complained about. Thanks, jon