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 C297D2F8E98; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 15:27:31 +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=1783697253; cv=none; b=IZrKgcPfca9WCEc1IRYUVpQ7E6f5G5B7SewC0mxLFDNtIzrjfuNOGbqC4Y2a3D7ycGYOOtDpVd2eAr0u/rGjMVxAdAgJlSfboL8lvPDlZrPctaPvCQfje1qWcapYvz1NYnINjIrFvBQ1V4frSoEBeQ+IopMWcrHbml2Y4Uh3BlY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783697253; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TjcdxBN+YS1qIld4J/pIkflOExyvQiuyJWBhdY6fTZ8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=FrBPynvh43f3s6gWRaZ4v9+yTzTftiovn9N276uK/95uwh+bmGyD+LODJRsSMEElbNBhUGlMTZVDJeOS1cqbs9e6T2kM8sI0BQekZKrEqjTvwrVQwYPUDFy1G5t166MLBxY0si4MOIyXNDQleAUUPNi6qX+6gsfhDS0Gx9mmFAk= 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=Ol8D3z8m; 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="Ol8D3z8m" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net A2FD340E3D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1783697244; bh=vvQEoUVE82+owdtPfVQDI6JM2NHa6BLxY4xHAZI2FDg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Ol8D3z8mjcd9ikJthdlEl3pUbJyntm8W94iq/eaTswXjOzuXRYVzx1OT0BKQU++sw heTSti0u7dOubbBGZ5JSlp04dyrXxn4U+wqz4P9FJ4/kdswS+bxb4u00iX7a0puqKu NGBufwut/1SP111sUH6K01GtIe+Vx9DeghhP7pgdHqQaQvZSQzSZj///CkfP1NJKCH zfr9VfCNN6vIBQHQAr+HTtWHB+fcPlSfJ8IRhM7iMdO8jNjqH3G0F8psdhOL0aFtRA 9u3BZubarr2i2XoYf2tNO/A6lLmEqEJ49GITHbvcrwG4xx6BzFonn0+vBYFwHivkIq YeFY4ZWNRBRaA== 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 A2FD340E3D; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 15:27:24 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Linux Doc Mailing List Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , 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: <1950557405f1150acb1de50de1801f2413223b87.1783673996.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> References: <1950557405f1150acb1de50de1801f2413223b87.1783673996.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:27:23 -0600 Message-ID: <87fr1qn9us.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: > 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? Thanks, jon