On 7/22/19 10:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> In general, I would argue in favor of fewer "note", "warning", etc. >> Some documentation pages are now just a sequence of "note"s and little >> proper text. If the normal text properly explains a topic and its pros >> and cons, then we don't need all that extra decoration and it makes the >> text easier to read. > > +1. With the way these things are rendered in the current HTML output, > they are so visually distracting that they ought to be reserved for > absolutely critical info. I almost feel that we should ban <note> > entirely, because the rendering is completely disproportional to the > meaning.
Based on the example of auth-ident.html, removing "note" seems to make sense. It just seems like it's a part of the regular documentation. However, perhaps the reason people feel the need to highlight such things is that they want to ensure the reader catches an important point, particularly as one is often reading the documentation quickly to find the piece of info they're looking for (speaking from personal experience). That said, looking through some other pages, the "notes" feel like they're other "asides" to add more detail around a particular point, or calling out a specific fact. It seems like they could be inlined as part of the regular documentation. Something like a "warning" should be visually distracting...it's a warning that the user could end up in a dangerous situation with their data, so they should heed it. > (Or, maybe, somebody could tinker with the stylesheets?) I think lessening the use of "note" would help. It would require some rewriting in places it's being used. That way, if we need something that's truly a "warning" we won't feel as hesitant to add it to the docs. Thanks, Jonathan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
