Rework toc styles #6
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
These should fix a bunch of usability issues for longer and more complex tocs
aferditamuriqi
approved these changes
Apr 4, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
These should fix a bunch of usability issues for longer and more complex tocs:
olso that the last item in overflow is not cut off, and/or hidden by browsers’ url infobarmarginfor the indentation of nested lists as the previouswidthwould be computed relative to their container (so88%of88%of88%was68%forh3in the toc)blockified toc list items as they inheritedinline-blockfrom global stylesbox-sizingfor links and spans so that padding doesn’t add to thewidth– else they overflow their containerThat should work fine with 4 levels (actually reworked the toc because of that), but extra levels after that… nesting is becoming a not-so-great solution imho, probably something else should be used instead – or extra levels be ignored entirely?