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 BD07733A6E9; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 19:52:56 +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=1783713177; cv=none; b=Ep0dCG381QJrBCwUhuo0GGz1e3RbL31BZucuuaPmB6Ha611ptjKNZTbtVtkmUzAQ2DWcC9FWBasaWPSYMaczcQJ01rtTDMU0wnpGspYoGGVLflXeeHcxyrwaBGfBRJ23tfhVJ5+abz3K2w6e1FO77xl076xcOJ2dcjxvXnwHJpk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783713177; c=relaxed/simple; bh=S9YhyzrjkkF5liSWiD7srbFLm8qZPLCAg9kt5XGj8OE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Jr55SYQGCfQhOlyjdbyURxhg+MwzqRIgs9LLD/do/2MCCqpFSyRS6zE9hxObOMfzR8WjwINqjsvSAnR013jTPXYWD/7EC7fUQ0O/d8HJ1HD6RJwFcxGTUvL0BhWm+43lktcP8x8gBXvHxkXbvlGhM+s+w/P2Tzhnxie6t9ZENd4= 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=DaVnCHl5; 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="DaVnCHl5" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 01086415B3 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1783713176; bh=xVNyZNNKTFKleXI0EcCEPDI7RrOVX51P0/lKKUicYAA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=DaVnCHl5fBGdTFxB0b7V7lD3W8ZSquhx2DNNh5UUczvzkv1ix9Y1Hoae7HdlXMv8c aytDPfDMsQZ7IlA88ahgbZedqs047XdzteKks+ocTbL2UUzle/s8DZdFZbzVKTYWDx MFBvKyLseQI2Z/+nwEh0p/6ztVshTegOriwZ+W7JcF1etuKqqWXkVPqwhMIguKJA4W Ukhc0fiieL5iGfJAXw4kxG+uzGIua1RisuZCbfi+/fs2SG2PzIMqyMtm/qI5QPDRon /W2EGYzdzfM8yhQTE+xyp2wJxCsXme9jQzXRH3ddY8frK/ES5VJvyO6E8UkWQoSWJq QDusPwE/+s4RA== 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 01086415B3; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 19:52:55 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Linux Doc Mailing List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Clinton Phillips , Daniel Lundberg Pedersen , Hans Verkuil , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Petr Vorel , Randy Dunlap , Rito Rhymes , Shuah Khan , linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: custom.css: don't limit randering to old 800px monitors In-Reply-To: <20260710211953.2a3dbfa9@foz.lan> References: <1950557405f1150acb1de50de1801f2413223b87.1783673996.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> <87fr1qn9us.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <20260710211953.2a3dbfa9@foz.lan> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 13:52:55 -0600 Message-ID: <87a4ryk4fc.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mauro Carvalho Chehab writes: > On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:27:23 -0600 > Jonathan Corbet wrote: > >> Mauro Carvalho Chehab 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 >> > --- >> > 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